Dear Editor,
Reference is made to Vishnu Bisram’s SN, February 19 letter, ‘There should be respect for the minority by the Speaker in Parliament,’ in response to mine ‘The House has to be guided by laws, standard practices and an agenda and not how a Speaker feels about a situation’ (SN, February 16). Contrary to his understanding, at no time have I, expressly or implicitly, said the Speaker should “execute the agenda of the majority [and ignore] the respect for the minority.” My position on the relationship between the minority and majority, as stated in the letter of the 16th said: 1) “The Speaker in Parliament or Congress is elected by a majority vote, and is expected to lead in realising an agenda set by the majority with the input of the minority, with the intent that the society shall benefit from the best ideas, since no individual or specific group has all the answers to resolving the problems and influencing the desires of the people”; and 2) “And it is expected that as Speaker he will lead in ensuring that the principal agenda of the groups that elected him be advanced in the House, even as he takes on board suggestions and modifications from the opposite side of the House.”
Given the possibility for the tyranny of the majority and minority, were this nation to uphold the spirit, intent and letter of Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution, which guarantees a “political system…to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being,” the people would be better served. And having espoused this principle over the years, on which Mr Bisram has been inconsistent, it is no wonder now that the shoe is on the other foot as he seeks the application of Article 13. For years he has been one of the PPP’s loudest cheerleaders of their abuse of power.
Mr Bisram couldn’t contain his insults and efforts at delegitimising the majority by calling them “a dictatorship of one.” Further, his case for dismissing the no-confidence motion passed on Clement Rohee executing the duties of Minister of Home Affairs, lacks merit. Arguing that there has been a violation of “norms, rules, regulations and principled politics,” and giving a mangled understanding of the Chief Justice’s rulings do not make the no-confidence motion null and void. He has to do better than that and provide the evidence of the ruling, norms, regulations and principles so violated. Saying it is so does not automatically make it so, and he must prove the case. In fact, citing India as “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” only serves to expose the dishonesty of his claim.
This nation is reminded that the issue of Mr Rohee speaking (a fundamental right) as an elected representative and member of the National Assembly is different from him executing duties as Minister of Home Affairs. The right to speak as an MP is fundamental and secure having being elected to represent a constituency. When he addresses matters relating to Home Affairs as the subject minister after a no-confidence motion was passed on his stewardship is a demonstration of contempt for the decision of the House and the voice of the majority through their elected representatives. In fact, were one to refer to the India scenario, when a no-confidence motion in a minister is passed by “a majority” it signals to the head of state (president) that the subject minister no longer enjoys the people’s confidence (via the elected parliament). Such a decision is acted upon by the minister under review because among other things, it upholds the universal principle of honour in name and service to the public, and when such are brought into question persons remove themselves to facilitate the clearing of their names, or out of respect for the desire of the people. Additionally, this mindset connotes that public officials see themselves in service to the people and subject to the desire of the people, unlike here where this government thinks they are above the people and are doing them a grand favour. And where Mr Bisram sees the no-confidence decision as a “dictatorship of one” he is reminded it is consistent with the “majority” principle equally upheld in the India parliament.
On the election of the Speaker, Article 56 (2) of the constitution expressly states, “The Speaker may be elected either from among the members of the Assembly who are not Ministers or Parliamen-tary Secretaries or from among persons who are not members of the Assembly but are qualified for election as members.” Unlike the British parliament where the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan and renounces all political affiliation when taking office, no such requirement is made of Guyana’s Speaker and this falls more in line with that of US, Caribbean and other countries which have adopted the Westminster system of governance in principle, buty have localised it to suit their indigenous need.
Consequently, the Speaker in Guyana is not non-partisan because s/he does not have to renounce political affiliation; s/he is openly elected by political group(s) through yea/nay votes and therefore has a responsibility to further the agenda of those who have put their confidence in her/him.
Yours faithfully,
Lincoln Lewis
