Dear Editor,
THIS society must, at all times, call for explanation and proof of concepts that will impact our wellbeing from those who expound them.

We need to know what these concepts mean in serious terms, and how they will work, given the framework under which they are proposed to operate.

For instance, no Guyanese would disagree with national unity in principle, given that it implies the nation coming together as one. In fact, from this yearning, it can arguably be said that our motto, “One People, One Nation, One Destiny”, is birthed. Giving meaning, therefore, to this concept is reliant on a system of laws by which all are held to the same standards, and all play by the same rule. This is where the rule of law becomes important, in the sense that its application and enforcement are not guaranteed for some, but for all.

Such law has in place the protection of the right to freedom of association (Constitution, Article 147). Universal respect for this law will accept and ensure our right to association with ‘Party X’, as against ‘Party B’.

In our multiracial/cultural society, where the law enshrines protection from discrimination on the grounds of race (Article 149), then respect for this law will ensure that, regardless of our race, we are free to associate with the group we think best suits our needs; can represent our needs; speaks on our behalf; and there will be no discrimination against us, given our identity and for such an association.

In essence, what the two rights represent — if understood, applied and respected — is acceptance of diversity based on race and representation; which, when upheld, will ensure social cohesion. For social cohesion and national unity cannot happen in the absence of acceptance, respect and enforcement of the rule of law.

Humankind (individual and collective) have diverse interests, and where a society respects diversity in its citizens, systems will be put in place to recognise same and allow growth for it. The law, in its preamble, enjoins us to do so, and this is because diversity in itself is not inherently bad.

Where diversity becomes clouded and can lead to unsavoriness is by those who seek to represent diversity or insist that it only matters when all are herded like cattle into a box or conform to a group-think that it matters only when it is prescribed.

We must reject this notion, since it not only goes against the spirit and intent to foster meaningful diversity, but creates space for a new class to lord it over us in similar fashion as the colonial authority, who felt they knew what was best for their subjects. In this environment, the enjoyment of fundamental rights will be hinged to allegiance, or one must be prepared to kneel for them, lest one be denied them.

And this brings attention to the configuration of our electoral system, which in itself is diverse, and should it be upheld, augurs well for the sought after social cohesion and national unity. This country does not have a rigid Westminster system of “winner-takes-all.”

What this country is witnessing is absence of commitment and will to study, understand and apply/ respect the electoral system, consistent with the expressed will of the people. And this is primarily so because it does not fit into the desire to control the people by those who think they know what is best for the people.

Since 1992, our legislature, executive, regional and local government branches and tiers of government have become more diverse. Yet, in spite of this, the rule of law, which mandates inclusionary democracy through involvement in the management and decision-making processes of the State on matters that affect our wellbeing (Article 13), is being observed more in the breach. The rule of law that entrusts responsibility to the legislature to make laws to ensure the autonomy of our local democratic organs and allow the regions to develop their own programme, which would be incorporated into the National Budget and funded, are yet to be given deserving respect (Article 75, 76 and 77).

From this present electoral system, in 2015, the APNU+AFC won the executive and legislature. At the regional level, the PPP won seven regions and the APNU+AFC three. In 2011, the PPP won the executive, the combined opposition (APNU+AFC) controlled the legislature, and in the regions the combined opposition won four and the PPP six.

The people have been expressing their will very clearly, but the political leadership is ignoring it when it does not fit into their grand design. It would be interesting to see if central government and the opposition are respecting the will of the people in its present form by ensuring the law works for those whose confidence they did not secure in the 2015 elections.

This country’s problem is not the “winner-takes-all” system or the constitution. The problem is the wedded notion of a few whose desire it is not to give national unity a chance consistent with the present rule of law, because it does not fit into their theory/sense that they know what is good for the people. So the obvious is ignored in preference to fostering/imposing a new political hustle where elections now see individuals/groups forming alliance to cash in on the voters’ will in order that they can find a seat at the table, reap the benefits of elected privilege, or claim to being representatives of the people.

Persons have now found a way to rig the system to acquire power and foist themselves on us.

Winning over the people to ideas and competing for the privilege to represent them, which is what elections are about, no longer seen important. If this is allowed to continue, it is only a matter of time before it is advanced that elections are unimportant and the spoils should be divided among a chosen few, based on the racial demographics.

The new Local Government system allows for more diversity in electing leaders, and choice of representation, yet it is feared this will be subsumed to this emerging culture, and accusation has been made that it fits into a “winner-takes-all” system.

We have reached a situation where some are not interested in respecting and implementing the rule of law, but more in ensuring their view hold sway and determine the system of government they think we deserve to live under.

We, the people, must reject it. Let the rule of law in its present configuration be given a chance to work; and when it is put to work, where failure exists, then let us fix it.

LINCOLN LEWIS