We are trying to force our unique circumstances into an idealized majoritarian framework

Dear Editor,

Mr. Nigel Hinds’ ‘Ineligibility of PM candidate of main parties to become President is most repulsive’ (SN:06/01/2020) is laced with unwarranted moral invectives, but they are unable to camouflage his absolute wrongheadedness. So, let me go directly to his main point.

Mr. Hinds claimed that, ‘The racialist routine that restricts the Prime Minister from becoming President and preside for the remainder of the government’s term in office on the occurrence of death or resignation of the President; started by the PPP/C and now joined by the PNC-led APNU+AFC Coalition is a retrograde and most repulsive development in the era of unrigged elections in Guyana. ….. Any practice by political parties to have provisions articulating the ineligibility of the Prime Minister to become the President on an ongoing basis; essentially due to his or her race, is the plainest way of saying that the political party is a racist party and condones racism.’

This is essentially a false statement as neither the PPP/C nor the APNU+AFC agreement have designated what race the prime minister must be. They simply determine from which parties the president and PM will come.  However, it is real politics, not theoretical excursions that determine how political parties must behave if they are to win support and government.

The two large ethnic groups in Guyana that constitute about 85% of the voting population vote essentially for their own ethnic parties, and not unjustifiably it is thought that if you want to win cross-over votes you will need to field persons of their ethnicity at the top of the ticket. Thus, in the unlikely event in our situation, if the PPP/C should choose an African as its presidential candidate, the PM coming from the Civic will most definitely be an Indian.

Of course, similar constitutional – not mere informal arrangements as in Guyana – exist in many other political jurisdictions that have to deal with different types and levels of ethnic cleavages. For example, in Lebanon the president must be Christian, the prime minister a Sunni Muslim and the speaker of parliament must be Shi’ite Muslim.

The Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland requires that the Northern Ireland government is co-chaired by a first minister coming from the Unionist/protestant parties and deputy first minister coming from the nationalist/Catholic parties. It goes even further and for specified purposes upon taking their seats, members of the national assembly must declare themselves ‘unionist’, ‘nationalist’ or ‘others.’

According to Article 99 of the Constitution of Belgium the government is made up of no more than 15 ministers, equally divided between French-speaking and Dutch-speaking communities. In Cyprus  between 1960 and 1968, citizens had to opt to be either Greek Cypriot or Turkish Cypriot when they voted.

Cross-community political parties hosting candidates from numerous ethnic groups were prevented from standing for election. In the Bosnian Federation, the three-member presidency requires one Muslim, one Croat and one Serb representative, each possessing vetoes.

The above is only the tip of the iceberg and there is absolutely nothing pernicious about what is taking place in Guyana: formal or informal political rules must be crafted to suit their concrete conditions.

The problem in Guyana is that too many of us, some quite opportunistically, have fallen prey to the little we have gleaned from living essentially within the Westminster political system. We are being procrustean: trying to force the unique expression of our life into an idealized majoritarian Western liberal democratic framework.

However, the issue Mr. Hinds raised has been a particular concern of those of African ethnicity and is one reason why the shared governance proposal of A New and United Guyana (ANUG) is super-inclusive consisting of a presidency/executive of 5 persons who will, as is the case in Switzerland, rotate annually as the president.

As a matter of interest, I really would like Mr. Hinds to help me for I honestly do not understand what he meant when he said that the practice he is berating ‘is a retrograde and most repulsive development in the era of unrigged elections (my emphasis) in Guyana.’

Yours faithfully,

Henry B Jeffrey