PNC activists propose power sharing in new constitution - more authority urged for Parliament
Power sharing, changes in the electoral arrangements and increased oversight functions for the National Assembly were some of the proposals made by three activists of the People's National Congress (PNC) when they appeared before the Constitutional Reform Commission at City Hall on Sunday. In line with their power sharing arrangements, they also recommended that the President who will be the Head of Government, will be drawn from the party winning the largest bloc of votes. On the other hand, the Prime Minister who will be the leader of Government Business in the National Assembly, will be drawn from the party winning the second largest bloc of votes. The activists - Aubrey Norton, Sherwood Lowe and James McAllister, members of the party's central executive committee - appeared in their private capacities and not as representatives of the PNC. The PNC is to make its submissions for constitutional reform at a later date. Also among the recommendations in the Norton-Lowe-McAllister submission, was a proposal for the establishment of a Constitutional Court as well as an Equal Opportunities Commission and a Commission for the Promotion of Racial Harmony along the lines of a similar body in South Africa. Both commissions would report directly to the National Assembly. Detailing the power sharing recommendation, the proposal set 10 per cent of the national vote as the threshold requirement for allocation of seats so as to avoid excessive fragmentation of the government. This proposal also went further by stipulating that the party with the largest bloc of votes would be constitutionally accorded the first pick of two ministries, followed by the party with the second largest bloc. It said that after this first phase of selection, the other executive portfolios would be allocated through inter-party negotiations, bearing in mind the number of positions the parties are eligible to have. However, it added that if after one week there was no agreement, then the criterion for allocation would be the total number of votes gained by the parties entitled to assigned ministries divided by the number of ministries to be assigned. The party then having the first choice would be the one having the highest percentage of votes or the largest remainder after a deduction of a quota for the ministries already selected. The proposal also stipulated that no party should control an overwhelming majority in the cluster composed of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and those of Finance, Agriculture, Housing, Works, and Natural Resources. Further, it stipulated that the persons nominated by the parties must be subject to a hearing in the National Assembly which could reject the nomination by a two-thirds majority vote. Also, it stipulated that the Attorney General would be chosen by all the parties in the coalition for his professional capabilities as a member of the legal profession. In addition to the Legal Affairs Ministry which would be headed by the Attorney General, there would be no more than four other technocratic ministers. The Norton-Lowe-McAllister proposal also recommended a National Executive as the highest executive decision-making forum for the discussion of, and agreement on, issues which cut across the responsibilities of two or more Ministers, for prioritising executive and legislative proposals and for recommending a common position where necessary, such as dealing with external relationships. It also recommended prior agreement by the parties and civic society on a national development plan as well as that decision-making in an inclusionary government should be a balance between the need for allowing the government to be effective and responsive and that of facilitating multi-party input in decisions. In terms of the procedures for making decisions in the National Executive, the proposal recommended a choice of two options -consensus with a simple majority where no consensus could be reached on issues requiring no weighted majority for passage; or executive authority to ministers to act within their areas of responsibility and in accordance with an agreed programme endorsed by the parliament. It listed matters of national security, foreign affairs, race relations, land distribution, the annual budget and education as issues which require weighted majorities. The proposal also recommended that the larger parties in the power-sharing arrangements be given a veto for a certain time over programmes or policies which they deem to be of a nature that would seriously affect race relations. In the exercise of the veto which would have only a temporary braking effect, a party would be required to immediately propose its own amendments, and the national executive is required to reconsider the matter. However, in the event that no agreement is reached on the contentious issue(s) within a specified timeframe, the National Assembly would be asked to vote on the matter after seeking an opinion from the Commission for the Promotion of Racial Harmony. Explaining the electoral arrangements for the election of the 65-member legislature, the proposal called for the retention of Proportional Representation with changes to the manner in which the Assembly is constituted. According to the new arrangements, 45 members would be elected by the national vote and 20 to be elected directly by the regional votes. Under the present arrangements, 12 regional representatives sit in the parliament, 10 of whom are elected by the Regional Democratic Councils and two by the National Congress of Local Democratic Organs. The changes, according to the proposal, are designed to strengthen the link between the elected and the electorate and to create a parliament more independent of the party leaders, which they see as a critical requirement for the efficacy of their power-sharing arrangements. The method of selecting the 45 national members would be by a "partially open list" system with the party leadership and party supporters sharing the responsibility for extracting the names of the candidates to sit in parliament. In voting at the elections, electors would be given the opportunity to rank a specified number of candidates on the list. The candidates receiving the highest number of votes would be eligible for extraction from the list. However, the number that would be extracted would depend on the number of seats won by the party, bearing in mind that the party leadership shares the responsibility for the extraction of the names. The 20 regional members would be elected directly by the regional vote. The 20 seats would be allocated to the various regions according to population size but distorted so as to ensure that there is at least one representative from each region. The electors in each region would be required to pick one of the candidates listed on the ballot papers. The candidates elected will be those obtaining the highest number of preferences. With regard to the parliamentary arrangements, the Norton-McAllister-Lowe proposal required all the executive organs to be accountable to the National Assembly. Constitutional offices such as the Auditor General and the Police Complaints Authority would also be directly accountable to the National Assembly. It further recommended that oversight committees should be chaired by a parliamentarian different to that of the Minister responsible for the portfolio. These committees, which would have extensive powers of scrutiny and enquiry, would be constituted in accordance with the relative strengths of the parties in the Assembly. It also called for all bills to be referred to the committees for scrutiny except those considered by a weighted majority to be simple, uncontroversial or urgent. The proposal called too for the deliberations and hearings of the oversight committees to be open to the public with individuals and organisations being encouraged to present oral or written evidence to the committee in an attempt to influence decisions or contribute to inquiries. However, the proposals called for these proceedings to be closed to the public when matters of state security or other sensitive issues are being considered. It also stressed the need for the parliamentary opposition to move from being adversarial and confrontational to being more constructive and issue oriented. The opposition, according to the proposal, would comprise those parliamentarians not in the National Executive and those whose parties had opted not to participate in the National Executive or were ineligible to be assigned a ministerial portfolio. To support their power-sharing arrangements, the proposal also called for the establishment of a Constitutional Court which among its other functions, would decide on the constitutionality of legislation, determine at the request of the National Assembly, whether the holders of constitutional offices, including the President, have failed to comply with their constitutional duties. It will also be required to rule on disputes within the National Executive as well as among the various levels of the government concerning constitutional status and powers. Another support institution would be an Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) which would not be only a complaints authority but would monitor the activities of government and private sector agencies. It called too for the EOC to be well-financed, legally powerful, and a well-staffed institution organised to scrutinise the operations of such agencies as the tender boards, land selection committees, banks, public utilities and the Public Service. Its composition would be representative of the main ethnic and religious groups as well as the age and gender make-up of the population. Another support institution proposed is a Commission for the Promotion of Racial Harmony which would be mandated to promote respect for the cultures of all Guyanese regardless of ethnicity; and to promote and develop peace, friendship, tolerance and national unity among ethnic and religious groups on the basis of equality, non-discrimination and free association. As regulated by the National Assembly, it will also be vested with the power necessary to achieve its objectives through programmes to monitor, research, advise, investigate, educate, lobby and report. With regard to its proposal for the local government, it called for the depoliticisation of local government at the level of the Municipalities, the Neighbourhood Democratic Councils, and the Community Development Councils (CDCs), by prohibiting national party slates at their elections. 
|