Former leading executive of the PPP, Ralph Ramkarran has called for a change in the system of governance noting that the executive presidency  is not answerable at all for executive decisions.

In a column which appeared on his blog www.conversationtree.gy and in yesterday’s Sunday Stabroek, Ramkarran, a senior counsel,  noted the ongoing debate about a suitable form of governance for the country and said that the broken system must be repaired.

Ramkarran, who chaired the Constitution Reform Commission in 1999-2000, noted that in the discussions on a reformed charter both the PPP/C and the PNC were determined to retain the executive presidency.

He said that a return to the full Westminster system where the head of government is accountable to Parliament  or an amendment to entrench a coalition, no matter the results of the elections, were discussed in great detail but did not garner sufficient support.

“I have struggled mightily and for a long time, and so have many others, with ideas for an appropriate structure for our government, having regard to the specific challenges faced by Guyana.  I had supported the current system because it allowed the largest party to retain the presidency. I felt that if a situation like the current one arose a coalition government would be the natural outcome. Clearly I was wrong”, Ramkarran stated.

Noting that there was nothing undemocratic about a minority government and that no one claims that the PPP/C government is undemocratic, Ramkarran argued that minority governments do not last and are not expected to. He said the present minority government appears to expect opposition support for its policies and in Parliament provided it offers cooperation. On the other hand he pointed out that the opposition has other ideas and this leads to heightened tension and gridlock which he predicted “will continue for the life of the government”.

Ramkarran, who quit the PPP last year after nearly 50 years of membership following a fall-out over his strong views about the extent of corruption in the country, said that the immediate solution can only be early elections and a coalition government if the same or similar results are obtained as is the case in almost every other country.

“In the meantime our broken system of government must be repaired. Guyana has an executive presidency, answerable to neither parliament nor cabinet for executive decisions, is not bound by cabinet decisions, cannot be charged or sued, virtually cannot be impeached, controls the date for elections, can be elected by a minority and dominates the Parliament through the executive if his/her party or list has a majority. Where the president’s party does not have a majority and refuses to bring other forces in the government, chaos and gridlock prevail as at the present time”, he stated.

Ramkarran, a former two-term Speaker of the National Assembly, recommended that what was needed was a prime minister as head of government from the political party with the most votes “answerable to and bound by both parliament and the cabinet, who is bound by the law as every citizen, who must have not only the support of the majority of the parliament but whose government must comprise on an equitable basis at least two political parties, the other political party having obtained the second largest number of votes.”

Where that model is unattainable in a specific time-frame following elections because of disagreement, the government should comprise one or more  parties which can command majority support in Parliament. The system should be accompanied by substantial devolution of power to regional and local government authorities and be accompanied by a bolstered judiciary and independently appointed and functioning constitutional bodies, he stated.

Dear Editor,

I endorse the position offered by former Speaker Ralph Ramkarran on having a parliamentary system of government to “repair Guyana’s broken system of government” (Sunday Stabroek, Feb 24).  Guyana was governed by a parliamentary system headed by a Prime Minister like the UK, Canada, India, Australia, etc, and it worked well until rigged elections (1968) destroyed it and Burnham felt it necessary he wanted more powers and created and approved (referendum in 1978) his own political system in 1980.  Nothing stops the country, except saving face for the PNC, from returning to the 1966 independence constitution returning us to an effective parliamentary system of governance.  Incidentally, if the parliamentary system were in effect, there would be a coalition government today – probably between the PNC and AFC.

I support the view, propounded by Mr Ramkarran, that there should be some kind of role (in governance) for the second largest party unless a party wins an overwhelming majority of votes in an election or there is a coalition of two or more parties with a significant majority that represents the compelling interests of the diverse groups in the nation.  Guyana is a racially polarized society and government must reflect the composition of the ethnic groups and give real (not token) representation (chosen by the people) to the diverse groups. Clearly, in Guyana, one race (one party) government can’t work.  Governance relating to ethnic issues hampers economic progress. The ethnic issue has been swept under the carpet and no party has attempted to address it head on.  It will not go away and Guyana will continue to suffer.

The government must be genuinely representative of the diverse people who should have faith and confidence in their government.  The people are sovereign and they must be allowed to freely choose their representatives. The elected representatives should not be hand-picked by some leader in a capricious manner but based on the popularity of the individuals within the group or party, and their ability to bring votes (as in Fiji or Mauritius).  And there should not be ethnic tokenism.

Let candidates work for their seats — earn votes to get a seat. Our system promotes inter-ethnic competition and ethnic tokenism where the ethnic groups vote for their parties and the leaders select the representatives. It is undemocratic. There are candidates and activists who spend much energy and time and bring votes to a party, yet seats are awarded to individuals who can’t bring two votes to the party.  In Guyana, candidates from another ethnic group are awarded seats even when they can’t bring a vote to a party. That system should come to an end. The country needs a system of intra-ethnic competition (à la Fiji, Belgium, etc) so people can choose the best leaders and representatives of their groups (several parties contest for seats within the group).  There is also a preferential system of selecting candidates within the group. In this way, the best candidates are chosen for parliament and elected representatives will not be beholden to a leader and a leader will not be able to award a seat to a member of another ethnic group to promote ethnic tokenism as is shamelessly displayed in parliament by all three parties. Such a system of intra-ethnic competition will force coalition government formation as the leader of a party or a prime minister will have to go outside his ethnic bloc to select MPs (who earn their group support) to join his government (cabinet). Ethnic tokenism will end and be replaced with genuine representatives of the groups leading to ‘shared governance,’ representing the diverse groups. A pm should be allowed to choose a few technocrats not elected to join his government from among the best talent in the country.

I don’t expect the parties to support a system of government in which people are given so much power to choose their representatives as it would mean that half of those sitting in parliament would lose their seats. But it is about time that the people took control of their government and demanded a better system of electing representatives than the sham that currently obtains.

I also agree with the former Speaker that there will be continued gridlock in governance because neither the opposition nor the ruling party will yield on issues.  Irrespective of what the opposition may say, the gridlock is about ethnic representation as they want power for their people. A fresh election may be the only way out, providing a party wins a majority and that is not guaranteed. At any rate, as the Guyana case has shown since 1955, governance in a racially bifurcated society is more than just winning a majority of seats in parliament.

The wining party has to address the serious ethnic issue facing the country and that has been the gist of the failure relating to governance since 1955. The country has not been able to make much economic progress because succeeding governments refused to address head on the intractable ethnic problem that negatively impacts on productivity. One race always felt excluded from governance and refused to cooperate with the ruling race.  A solution is needed for this problem.  One such solution may be intra-ethnic competition to choose the best representatives who can then come together to form a government that is truly representative of all groups as happened in several European societies that rely on coalition governments.

Yours faithfully,

Vishnu Bisram