|
By Khemraj Ramjattan
Tuesday, November 15th 2005
Mr Raymond Gaskin, my very good friend, the answer to your question is obvious. (SN, 10.11.05 'Will a member of the AFC who is expelled be able to keep his seat?') Absolutely! An expelled AFC member or one who dissociates will be able to keep his seat. No AFC leader or organ will be in any position to disqualify such a dissenting MP.
You see Raymond, it is like having picked your 11 best players to play in a Test Match, expecting all to perform well. In mid-match one does not. He drops 5 simple catches and gets bowled for a duck first innings. The selectors cannot drop him and put in another player for the second innings; he has to play through the entire Test. And this would be the case, of course, until there is a change of the rules of the game.
In identical terms, the present arrangement under Guyana's Constitution and all relevant laws on this issue cannot realise a disqualification on any MP on such a ground that the electors do not like him any more.
Such a dissenting, dissociating MP must be permitted to serve out his constitutional period, unless, of course, he decides to vacate earlier. If a change of this scenario is required, then like in the cricket analogy, the rules governing Parliamentary disqualification must be amended.
To begin with, who should make the call that such dissenting MP should be disqualified? The Leader of the List? This will be most objectionable, and would be legalising party-leader paramountcy. Why should he have such a power when the electors may very well find favour with such a rebellious MP? Should not the ultimate power of recall be with electors? Quite frankly this is where I believe it should reside. But in a PR electoral system, it would be almost impossible to effectuate.
And it is precisely because such amended rules will be very difficult to implement in the context of a Proportional Representational electoral system, that the fall-back position in the constitutional reform process was article 156(3). And what is this article saying? It is emphatically asserting that it is the MP, and he alone, who has the power to disqualify himself! Any reading of that article 156(3) must mean that the final decision as to vacating the seat rests on the MP. This was where the constitutional reform process rested it, in view of the difficulty of resting it elsewhere. And which MP, if he does not want to vacate his seat, will ever declare in the prescribed manner?
Mr Ramotar gives the impression that it is a technicality that the form of this declaration has not yet been drafted. It is the meaninglessness of whatever form the declaration takes, and the easy escape route from its application that it has not yet been drafted! But even if it were, any sensible MP who wants to keep his seat will avoid such a declaration. This is all he has to do - avoid it. If he wants to vacate, he makes the prescribed declaration and says goodbye.
Let me say this. All these arguments were gone through with Mr Ramotar when consideration was being given to the question of whether Mr Nadir should cross over or not. Mr Nadir and the TUF, unlike the AFC, had a list in accordance with article 156(3). Changing his seat over with the PPP can be regarded as conduct tantamount to supporting another list. Yet Mr Ramotar never found Mr Nadir's conduct unconstitutional or immoral. What hypocrisy!
Finally, I want Mr Ramotar to know that his use of Rosa Parks and the apartheid-system instances to buttress his timid, flawed argumentation against my stand on the Parliamen-tary issue was wholly out of place, and without logical relevance. Rosa Parks and Mandela are heroes of mine. They fought against systems purporting to be lawful and moral, but which were wholly unlawful and immoral. My sitting in Parliament is totally lawful. Neither you nor anyone else can shift me from there! My fight to keep my seat may just be that spark to give the impetus to destroy party paramountcy and democratic centralism. Try to make sense next time, Donald, and don't attempt a Stella!
|
