Dear Editor,
In the European tradition, at least until the 17th century, parliamentary Speakers were seen as agents of the kings who carried out the dictates of monarchs wielding enormous powers. Some Speakers were, at least seven of them, beheaded between 1394 and 1535 because they relayed unwanted news to the monarch. The passage of time has transformed this past practice to the point where the Speaker has evolved, often as a buffer between the law-making and executive branches of government. Today, the role of a parliamentary Speaker is quite different from that in a presidential system like the United States, where the said person, like former House of Representatives Speaker Newt Gingrich, can adopt highly partisan and ideological positions consistent with the party of his affiliation.
The continuing discourse and discussions regarding who will become the next parliamentary Speaker in Guyana, as well as the jostling and posturing among the three political parties is a clear and obvious reflection of the unresolved deep divisions in our society. The just concluded elections did not help to heal the deep wounds that are rooted in the pre- and post- independence era of Guyanese politics and the traditional honeymoon period that is normally associated with a newly elected government seems to have quickly evaporated, if not eviscerated.
What is generally accepted by observers of parliamentary systems is that the Speaker of the Parliament, by tradition, has evolved, at least in the British Westminster tradition, into a neutral position that is seated by a person with extensive parliamentary and governmental experience, though not necessarily legal experience as some people seem to argue. The position requires the person to have a clear understanding of the nuances of Guyanese society and political parties that are in constant competition for power and the political space to implement policies. In addition, the assumption of this position does nor preclude the candidate from maintaining his political support for the party of his preference, but the position of Speaker demands impartiality, one in which the candidate must also have the capability of wearing different political hats. For all intents and purposes, this traditional yardstick would eliminate those well known political candidates who have publicly expressed a clear preference for this position, namely Debra Backer and Moses Nagamootoo, both of whom may not meet the impartiality criteria because they are seen as individuals with axes to grind and/or will be guided by their obvious dislike for the ruling party.
In his seminal work, The Office of Speaker, Philip Laundy, examining the British and Australian systems (which Britain has influenced) described the qualities of the Presiding Officer (Speaker) in this way: “It is parliamentary rather than legal experiences which is the first requirement of a Speaker. He must have an intimate understanding of parliamentary life, of the problems of Members collectively and individually, of the moods and foibles of the House: an experience which can be acquired only through many years spent on the benches of the House itself. He must have a deep-seated reverence for the institution of Parliament, an understanding of what lies behind the outward ceremony and a faith in democratic government…”
He further noted that “… the Speaker… once elected is always reelected by the House until such time as he or she resigns or retires. This principle, sometimes referred to as the continuity principle, derives from and is a recognition of the special status of the Speaker and the acknowledged impartiality of occupants of the office and has not been seriously threatened since the 18th century.” It follows, in his view, that “if the previous Speaker is still in the House of Commons and available, there seems to be no doubt that he or she will be re-elected regardless of political majorities.” According to this view, the decade of experience of Ralph Ramkarran in this position places him ahead of anyone else, be they party affiliates or non-political operatives.
Newly-appointed Attorney General Anil Nandlall, in a recent comment, appeared to have missed the opportunity to emphasize this point when he suggested that “given the new dispensation the way forward would be for all parties to support a consensual arrangement before the start of the new Parliament.” What if there is no consensus that involves the governing party?
What is clear is that the current posturing reveals another test of the strength of wills of the political parties to move beyond this hurdle. But this is just one of the many hurdles that will ultimately test the strength and power of the Ramotar government and its ability to not be bullied into appeasement by the main opposition.
Yours faithfully,
Baytoram Ramharack
