Hughes’s supermajority call is to impose tyranny of a minority over the majority

Dear Editor,
The ethnic chauvinists in Guyana are getting more and more desperate. Attempts were made to change the formula for majority in Parliament; demands were made for power-sharing; and now they are asking for supermajority for decision-making in Parliament, and for presidential actions.
Nigel Hughes’s call for supermajority for decision-making in Parliament shows his and the Opposition’s continued quest for power by any means. Just as in the attempted rigging of the March 2, 2020 General and Regional Elections, Nigel Hughes is looking for another backdoor entrance into power. It is nothing less than another attempt to wrest power from the people and place it in the hands of a small group of individuals. It is not dissimilar to his attempt to thwart the No-Confidence power of Parliament when he tried to revise and pervert the majority-rule by deciding 33 is not larger than 32.
But more important, Nigel Hughes, in his call for constitutional provisions to ensure all decisions in Parliament must be decided by a supermajority, exposed him for the ethnic chauvinist he is.
There is a place for supermajority votes in Parliament. Almost all constitutions in the world identify supermajority for certain parliamentary decision-making. For example, the bulk of the constitution can only be amended or changed through supermajority votes in Parliament.
Guyana’s Constitution already provides for such supermajority votes. In addition, the Guyanese Constitution provides for certain Parliamentary responsibilities to be approved by supermajority votes. The appointment of the members of the National Procurement Commission must be approved by a super majority vote in Parliament. GECOM and the electoral system can only be changed through super-majority votes. The Rights Commissions cannot be appointed until Parliament makes nominations that involve various supermajority votes. The supermajority votes catered for by the Guyanese Constitution are usually two-thirds majority votes. The Ethnic Relations Commission is a prime example – the members must be approved by a two-thirds majority in Parliament. Even to consult with organizations for nominations of candidates for the Rights Commission, supermajority votes are required.
But the Constitution requires presidential actions that must have agreements with the Leader of the Opposition. The appointments of the Chancellor of the Judiciary and the Chief Justice require that there be agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. Similarly, the Constitution provides for agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition for the appointment of the Chairman of GECOM. The Constitution provides for meaningful consultation between the President and the Leader of the Opposition on a number of other actions by the President. One such other action is the appointment of the Police Commissioner.
Meaningful consultation in the present Constitution is not the kind that the PNC used to do under Forbes Burnham. For the PNC under Burnham, something that Granger tried to emulate, it was a simple phone call to Cheddi Jagan to inform him who he was appointing. In the present Constitution, meaningful consultation is defined, and involves a number of documented steps.
I challenge Nigel Hughes and those who have jumped on another of Hughes’s wicked bandwagons to dispute these following facts. Nigel Hughes and his sycophants know that the present Guyana Constitution, through significant amendments in 2000/2001 to the 1980 Burnham Constitution, is rich in opportunities for supermajority votes and for supermajority decision-making at the executive level. He knows that Guyana does not generally have fewer opportunities for supermajority votes and participation than other countries. He, in fact, knows that Guyana has far more opportunities for super-majority decision-making than any country in Caricom, and more than most countries in the world. He needs to admit these facts, and that what he really is demanding is that all decision-making be backed up by some form of supermajority mechanisms, in spite of the many already provided for.
Guyana has experienced the positive aspects of super-majority votes, but we have also been paralyzed by the provisions in our Constitution for super-majority votes and for super-majority-driven executive actions. Everyone I know believes there is need for regular constitutional reforms and that the present Constitution can benefit from reforms. But these very people who insist we need reforms ignore that the two-thirds majority vote in Parliament makes it almost impossible for constitutional reforms.
The Constitution caters for regular reforms through the establishment of a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Constitutional Reform. This parliamentary committee can include civil society members coopted by Parliament. The committee met regularly after 2001 under the Chairmanship of Doodnauth Singh and Charles Ramson, but little progress was made because we could not even get agreement on what issues to place on the agenda. In 2011, David Granger became Chairman of the Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional Reform. That committee met a grand total of two times in four years for a total of no more than 15 minutes. In 2015, Basil Williams became the Chair. That committee met for even less than 15 minutes in a total of two meetings over five years.
The dormancy of these Constitutional Reform Committees resulted from the supermajority imperatives.
There is a reason why the electoral system, which caters for 25 geographic seats, has not proceeded to the next step that the Constitution provides for – demarcating boundaries to allow for specific constituency seats, rather than geographic seats. There is a reason why a formula for resource allocation for local government has not advanced. The reason is simple – the supermajority imperative imposed through the Constitution has led to paralysis.
Since the 2001 constitutional introduction of a supermajority imperative for the appointment of the Chancellor and the Chief Justice, Guyana has been forced into a state of almost perpetual acting appointments for these two critical positions. The Constitution requires agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition. For 22 years, Guyana has not had a fully-appointed Chancellor and Chief Justice. Carl Singh acted as Chancellor, and now Justice Cummings-Edwards is acting as Chancellor. Justice Chang acted as Chief Justice, and now Justice George is acting. The Commissioner of Police and other appointments continue to be acting appointments because of the need for meaningful consultation that the President and the Leader of the Opposition have not been able to conduct. There is no end in sight for their acting status.
These are just some examples of the paralysis that super-majority can lead to. Can anyone envisage what would happen if the annual budget had to be passed through a super-majority vote in Parliament? What would happen if the appointment of an Ambassador or High Commissioner had to rely on agreement between the President and the Leader of the Opposition? What would happen if every road, bridge, street, pump station, school, hospital, etc. had to rely on a super-majority vote in Parliament? What would happen if a super-majority must decide on salary increases?
When, between 2011 and 2015, the PNC-controlled APNU/AFC had a one seat advantage in Parliament, they used that simple majority to cut the budget. They blocked funding for the Amaila Falls Hydroelectricity project. Just think of this: Amaila would today have been producing cheaper and more reliable energy than the fossil fuel-generating plants of GPL today. They blocked the budget for the Modernisation and Expansion of the CJIA. They blocked the upgrading of dozens of airstrips in the hinterland. This is just a glimpse of how a simple majority vote was used to paralyze the Government. What would they do with a super-majority vote imperative? They would totally paralyze development in Guyana.
The hidden agenda is to ensure the PPP cannot govern. Remember that power-sharing and super-majority imperatives are only subjects when the PPP is in Government. When they are in Government, they even ignore the opportunities for supermajority votes. They changed the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) and the Sectoral Committee memberships between 2015 and 2020, allowing ministers to sit. David Granger decided to abandon the constitutional provision for the appointment of the GECOM Chair when he arbitrarily appointed James Patterson.
The fact is that while supermajority votes are extensively used for certain parliamentary and executive decision-making in every country in the world, it is not used for all decision-making, as Hughes demands. In Guyana’s case, the mistrust and the dishonesty displayed by the PNC and their sycophants have ensured that, by and large, supermajority mechanisms have led to paralysis.
The demand for, and practice of, supermajority votes in Parliaments are not new. After more than 100 years in the SEJM (Parliament) in Poland, the practice was abandoned in 1795 because that country suffered almost total paralysis for more than 100 years. The Founding Fathers of America discussed the possibility of supermajority for most decision-making in America, but after listening attentively to Alexandar Hamilton’s caution about injecting the “Polish Diet” into American democracy, decided that supermajority votes for all decision-making are capable of derailing democracy, allowing a tyranny of a minority over the majority.
What we have in Guyana is a set of persons, led largely by the PNC, who either want power through rigged elections or want to use a mechanism whereby a minority can impose tyranny over the majority. These persons have worked hard to keep one ethnic group in their corner in order to gain legitimacy for their demands. The results of the 2020 elections, the further results of LGE 2023, the popularity of President Irfaan Ali and his ONE GUYANA Movement, and the popularity of Bharrat Jagdeo are signs that the PNC, Nigel Hughes and the others have begun to lose their hold on that base. The fact is that the Guyanese people will no longer tolerate ethnic chauvinists among us.

Sincerely,
Dr Leslie Ramsammy