Dear Editor,
This is in response to Mr Lincoln Lewis’s missive titled, ‘The House has to be guided by laws…’ (SN, Feb 16) in which he chastises the Speaker for failing to execute the agenda of the majority to bar Minister Clement Rohee from speaking as well as to execute the other agendas of the majority opposition. I agree with Mr Lewis that the Speaker has the constitutional right to execute the agenda of the majority. But that principle applies only with regard to the adoption of really meaningful bills pertaining to policies and programmes, not to the functioning rules of parliament. There is a principle in democratic governance called respect for the minority. All democratic establishments are guided by it.
The Speaker cannot simply give a blanket ruling accepting all of the opposition’s motions, including ones to ban people from speaking. These must be based on precedents, rules and laws and a chance for the opposition to be heard – not just majority rule. There must be fair play and a balance of rules and speaking time within the House and respect for all views. One cannot just use one’s majority to ramrod everything through parliament. If that were the case, one could pass just about any Bill, including a Bill to prevent anyone from speaking – and how foolish would that sound? I teach American Government in New York and one of the functioning principles of American government is majority rule, but it is balanced with respect for the minority – a necessary element of democracy which has tremendous implications for good governance and furthering democracy, especially for countries in transition from a dictatorship as ours. The minority must be allowed to speak and efforts made to incorporate or respect its views if they are ‘good’ – at the discretion of the majority.
The opposition passed a motion of no confidence against Minister Rohee following the Linden upheaval, using its dictatorship of one vote. The executive says the motion is unenforceable. The majority then decided the Minister will not speak in parliament. The two are separate issues. I believe the parliament has the power to pass a motion of no confidence against any minster including the chief executive, and it is a principle that guides governance everywhere. But the principle was misapplied in the Linden affair pertaining to Mr Rohee. Mr Rohee made terrible blunders as a minister and should have been sanctioned long before the Linden violence. But the opposition did not see it fit to make a case against him for rising lawlessness, etc. It was only when the Linden violence happened that it opted to make an issue of Mr Rohee. No case was made out implicating Minister Rohee in relation to the Linden violence. In addition, the opposition demanded and the government agreed to hold an inquiry. The opposition should have waited for the inquiry to be completed before proceeding to sanction the minister. If Mr Rohee were found to be responsible, I am sure he would have tendered his resignation in conformity with parliamentary practice or the chief executive would have moved against him. But the opposition jumped the gun using its majority of one vote to punish a member for something he did not do – revenge politics. What took place in Guyana’s parliament relating to Mr Rohee is a violation of norms and as the Chief Justice also correctly ruled, a violation of an MP’s right to speak in parliament.
All over the globe where democracy exists, the Speaker cannot take away a member’s right to be heard in parliament. Also, the Speaker serves the majority, and yes, the majority should get its way but not at the expense of violating norms, rules, regulations and principled politics. In India, for example, perhaps the strongest example as a model for liberal democratic parliamentary governance, the Speaker indeed serves the interests of the majority because the Speaker is chosen by the majority as is the case in Guyana. But the Speaker has never denied the minority the right to express its views. In fact, the minority gets equal time with the majority to present its views on bills and even to present its own bills.
In addition, the Indian Speaker has never denied anyone the right to speak. That is a gross violation of democratic norms. That is what Mr Lewis is advocating by his definition of majority rule even when the Chief Justice says the Speaker cannot deny a member his right to speak.
Yours faithfully,
Vishnu Bisram
