THE dangers of dual citizenship in the context of national and legislative leadership were laid bare for all and sundry to see on December 21st, 2018 in the Guyana Parliament. The results of the no-confidence vote against an incumbent government that acceded to power with the hopes, wishes and aspirations of the majority of Guyanese hinged on the vote of one individual.
Member of Parliament Mr. Charrandass Persaud voted in favour of this motion while having asserted his allegiance to Canada by carefully planning his exit from a country with the typical outlook of a dual citizen. His request for assistance from the Canadian High Commission was the clearest signal where his allegiance lies.
Swearing loyalty to a foreign power should automatically disqualify anyone from making a decision that would have far-reaching implications for any country, in any context.
Having established the aforementioned, it is worthy to note this debate is not new and the argumentation against members of Parliament sitting on the citizenship fence as it were, have been exhausted by many countries.
For all intents and purposes of this discussion, as a Commonwealth country, Australia is Exhibit A. In 2017, the eligibility of 15 members of the Parliament of Australia triggered a constitutional crisis. This dispute was tied to Section 44(i) of the Australian Constitution which states; ‘Any person who is under acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or citizen of a foreign power, shall be incapable of being chosen or of sitting as a senator or a member of the House of Representatives’. The proponents of this legislation would gleefully use Guyana’s recent experience as an example to illustrate the jeopardy of having dual citizens make decisions that can have adverse and monumental effects on the lives of citizens of any given polity.
Perhaps, a brief definition of a dual citizen and the psychology of such an individual can enhance this intervention. When more than one country recognizes a person as its citizen, that person is said to be a dual citizen. Such a person lives every day with the luxury of exploiting the options available to them under this status. He/she is rest assured that their survival options are broadened and they can seek the best way out in times of crisis in either country. The mindset of the dual citizen is of such that he or she can apply loyalty conveniently and whenever they see fit to their advantage.
Some countries such as India have stringent legislative safeguards against this phenomenon, while others allow and encourage dual citizenship. In fact, the number of countries that embrace double allegiance has been increasing, these include Albania, Barbados, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Canada, Central African Republic, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominica, Ecuador, France, Ghana, Greece, Grenada, Guatemala, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Liechtenstein, Maldives, Morocco, New Zealand, Nigeria, Panama, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Sri Lanka, Switzerland, Syria, Turkey and the United Kingdom. Permit me, at this juncture, to distinguish between ordinary dual citizens and the dual citizens who operate or have intentions to operate in the role of legislators. Countries permit dual citizenship, but most unquestionably are against the idea of dual citizens sitting in the people’s Parliament.
Back to the main subject at hand. The vote on a no-confidence motion moved against the APNU+AFC government of Guyana on December 21st 2018, proved the worst fears of those who argue against dual citizens being representatives of the people in the legislative body. The hopes, dreams and aspirations of the people rested with one Parliamentarian who is a dual citizen and decided to dash the national desires of the people with one fell swoop, voting in favour of the motion and plunging this country into a period of constitutional uncertainty.
He then casually boarded a plane to the country of his choosing. Suggestions of bribery in the mix do not induce much confidence in this scenario. When one is in a dualized state, pecuniary temptations are at their most potent. It is evidently a gross injustice to have one man, who is not obligated to remain in a host country to live through the political consequences of his legislative actions, be the final arbiter on [an issue] of cataclysmic resolution.
In conclusion, a cursory glance at this development would reveal that Guyana is playing catch up to a phenomenon that teems with bad omens for any republic even though our constitution states; ‘No person shall be qualified for election as a member of the National Assembly who…is, by virtue of his or her own act, under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state’ In our case, it is far more pronounced and tentative. A coalition government that holds a slim majority facing a no-confidence vote with dual citizens who know they can get assistance from their Embassy/High Commission of allegiance and hop on a flight at any time, is quite a troubling circumstance.
A coalition government engaging in the wanton transformation of a broken society betrayed in Macbethan style by a dual citizen is a stark reminder of the precarious situation we face when men and women with their minds on a foreign existence, sit in the National Assembly. There should be a call on each side of the house to immediately respect the spirit and the letter of the constitution as it relates to dual citizenship. It is risky business.
