This column this week is unique in that it steps away from the interpretation of the economy to focus on the rule of law and good governance. More particularly, the case of the State of Guyana vs Cedric Richardson, popularly known as the “Third Term” Case.
A Parliament plays an important role in the life of a nation. It performs three main functions: a) makes new laws, changes existing laws and repeals laws which are no longer needed; b) represents and articulates the views and wishes of the citizens in decision-making processes and c) oversees the activities of the executive so that the Government is held accountable to the people. Therefore, a Parliament gauges, collates and presents the views and needs of the people, and articulates their expectations and aspirations in determining the national development agenda.
Unfortunately, in Guyana’s case, we have failed miserably in all Governments to provide this articulation of the views of the people save and except for the three short years between 2012 and 2015 when the nation had a minority government. In fact, it is my conviction that it was the best act of democracy ever experienced in the nation.
To be able to generate such a system of checks and balances, I truly believe that the unicameral parliamentary system must be replaced by a bicameral parliamentary system. Unfortunately, those who were responsible for amending the Constitution failed the nation by not empowering the Parliament to become more of a voice of the people to better represent and articulate their views. Today Parliament is nothing but a rubber stamp to the Executive President.
After a long and hard think around this challenge, I would like to replant the seed around the question of why does Guyana not have a bicameral assembly where all laws must pass both houses before it reaches the desk of the President? This entire process can be achieved in a cash-neutral manner by reducing the number of MPs in the Lower House to facilitate the creation of an Upper House. For example, an Upper House of 11 representatives will result in a Lower House of 54 elected MPs.
This number of 11 came from one person each who is put forward to serve the following constituencies: women, youths, farmers, professionals, academics, workers, Amerindians, and the business community, and a representative each from Essequibo, Demerara and Berbice by way of the Local Authority System (LAAs). These 11 persons will have to be selected by set criteria – for example the Chairman of the Private Sector Commission, the Chairman of the National Youth Council, the Chairman of the National Toshao Council and so on. People will only be able to serve as per their position and not who they are to allow some level of dilution of influence from the political parties. It is clear that the political parties will not have the kind of influence over these 11 persons in the Upper House that they would have over the 54 elected politicians in the Lower House, but that is the purpose of the Upper House to decentralise power away from the political parties to the people.
Bicameralism is a highly distinctive feature of many democracies but it appears to be working best in Australia. Among the world’s democracies, there is a strong correlation between the strength of a democracy, bicameralism, the degree of federalism and governmental decentralisation. In a study by political scientist Arend Lijphart, published by Yale University Press, called “Democracies”, he postulated four compelling reasons for a bicameral legislature as follows:
1. Redundancy – the second pair of eyes on the work of the politicians.
2. Delays – which serve to allow for a proper formation of public opinion by way of the input of different stakeholder groups, whose opinion are brought to bear on the matter at hand.
3. Separation of powers – in the Lower House, they are controlled by the political Whips who demand loyalty along party line, but this will not serve in the case of the Upper House. Thus, the Upper House can quarantine itself from becoming a tool of the executive leadership of the respective political parties with their recall power.
4. Consensus Democracy – Making the process of governing as inclusive as possible recognising the diversity within the Guyanese society. The Upper House can create the opportunity whereby the leader of the Government or the leader of the Opposition does not necessarily control the whole opinion. Rather the Upper House creates room for greater consensus democracy and empowerment of various interest groups who are not necessarily wedded to the political parties.
Such a constitutional adjustment will certainly bring greater accountability by the Executive and the Legislature to the people; after all, aren’t we supposed to be operating in a system of the people, by the people?
