The Guyana elections provides a startling example of how two alternative systems of electing representatives here in the Caribbean fail.
The system of Proportional Representation (PR), which has been the electoral system in Guyana since its independence in 1966, has failed to do two basic things in a democracy, namely allow a more accurate representation of the people's interests and allow them to discipline their politicians by changing governments with relative ease.
It has been interesting to note how many politicians and even academics of distinguished character, tout PR as a preferred system, but they have never attempted to reference Guyana as their example. The reasons are obvious. Guyana is the worst example of PR in a racially divided society in which political spoils mean so much to the common man.
The fact is that the major motivation of politicians here and in Guyana for proposing Proportional Representation has always been expediency.
The Burnham group found it as a short-term means of getting into power as part of a coalition. Once it had arrived in the corridors of power, the Burnham regime found out how easy it was to undermine the representative nature of the PR process by simply having the party candidates be listed alphabetically and not in order of seniority of preference.
Thus a party winning 26 seats under PR in Guyana still left the public in the dark as to which 26 people on the list will be allowed to occupy the seats in parliament.
But the indictment of the PR experience in Guyana is that it polarised the electorate even more along racial lines than did first past the post in T&T.
In spite of all of the hype and academic touting of PR, the sobering reality is this: whereas it took the Guyana electorate under PR, 50 years to change a government two times (1992 and 2015), T&T's electorate, within the same 50 years but under the first past the post system has been able to change their governments five times.
This is the reality that calls on all proponents of PR, especially those from the academic community, to step above their na�ve proposition that representation in governance is simply a matter of the mathematical subdivision of the total votes into total parliamentary seats.
Allan Williams
Arima