According to law, parties still have time to combine lists

Dear Editor,

Reference is made to your editorial “Parties and Parliament” (SN Jan 17). As you rightly stated, the presidency will go to either one of the two major parties — the PNC-led coalition or the PPP led de facto by Bharrat Jagdeo because the minor parties lack the wherewithal (financial resources and manpower) to contest everywhere on equal footing with the two giants.

As you correctly noted, the critical issue is control of parliament and whether the seven minor parties can make a sufficient dent (garner enough votes) into the base of the two major parties to deny either one that wins the Presidency (obtains the most votes) a majority; the president forms the government with or without a majority. The general feeling is if the minor parties can win seats in parliament, they can deny the victor a majority. In so doing, the minor parties can call the shots on governance – helping to provide responsible, non-racist, and corrupt free governance. They will hold the balance in parliament and influence legislation, budgets, expenditure, policymaking and more importantly how the oil revenues would be spent. It is, therefore, in the interest of the minor parties to win seats.

History has not been kind to the minor parties on parliamentary representation. Large numbers of voters don’t gravitate towards minor parties in our tribalized society except in 1964, 1992, and 2011. Race or ethnicity determines voters’ choice and the minor parties are not appealing on ethnicity although some voters may see them as ethnic oriented and cast ballots accordingly.

On their own, only a few of the seven minor parties have any significant chance of gaining representation in parliament. However, if they were to form alliances, it would significantly increase the likelihood of winning seats.  The minor parties are unwilling to form alliances because of the fear of having to compromise party identity, giving up the presidency and head of lists, and working out seat allotments.

The deadline for forming alliances is over. But the election law allows the parties to combine votes without giving up their identity or seat allotment or any other advantages they currently enjoy. In fact, in combining votes, they increase their chance of garnering seats. It is to their advantage to combine with one another. The two major parties can also combine with each other and or with the smaller parties; this would also empower both.

Section 22 of the Representation of the People Act speaks to combining lists.  Inter alia, the Act states that notification has to be made to Gecom (CEO and Chair) not later than 25 days before the elections. The head and deputy head of the list of a party must so inform Gecom in writing its intention of combing votes and with which parties. A party cannot be included in more than one combination. Once notified of parties combining votes, Gecom must so advise the electorate not later than 23 days before the election.

Gecom is on record as saying that the deadline for combining of lists is January 17. That would suggest a violation of the above Act. The 25th day before election is around Feb 5 and not January 17th. This act is not well publicized in the media; few know about this law. In addition, Gecom has not publicized the deadlines in advertisements. Gecom cannot set arbitrary deadlines on combining lists. It must provide ample opportunities to the parties to submit their lists. It is understandable that Gecom would need sufficient time before polling day to prepare ballots. But Gecom can extend this arbitrary deadline by publishing a notice in the media giving an extra week or thereabout for parties to combine lists.

Yours faithfully,

Dr. Vishnu Bisram