Dear Editor,
The brouhaha over MP Vanessa Kissoon’s reassigned seating in the National Assembly matters in the context of how such a decision was taken and what it can mean for future speaking assignments and time allotments. There is a method to the pecking order in the legislature.
People are not usually placed willy-nilly, because parliament is not only a place for representation, passing bills or motions, it is also a place for debates. There is a meaning behind seating that informs analysts as to importance of issues within the group and the concomitant attention likely to be paid thereto.
Shrewd leaders will seek to create an arrangement where usually they and the deputy occupy the first two seats in the front row, followed by shadow ministers (in rank of importance to agenda). The second and third rows comprise a mix that would factor in balance in debating strength, support to the front-benchers, seniority in the House, etc. The Chief Whip plays an important role in that this function has lead responsibility to rally the group for votes in favour of the party’s position; determine the order of
imporance for bills, motions to be sent to the Clerk; who will debate and for how long; and ensure that the debates flowing from their respective side of the House are smart, consistent and can keep the opposing side enthralled or befuddled while ripping away at their deficiencies. Seating matters!
While at present our legislature may not pay heed to these protocols, or its members may not be of the debating nimbleness of their forerunners that is not an excuse to disregard the seating protocol. Historically the National Assembly was a place where persons looked to learn, hone and improve their public speaking, oratorical and communication skills.
Having said that, Mr David Granger’s admission that MP Kissoon’s reassigned seat was an administrative decision cannot be divorced from 1) the considerations stated above; 2) the fact that Ms Kissoon was not notified prior to being reassigned and Mr Granger’s apparent cavalier attitude to this form of disrespect; and 3) Ms Amna Ally’s consternation that the unethical action attracted criticism and media attention.
Ms Kissoon was moved in order to prove a point, to clip her wings, to show who is boss. If this was not a naked abuse of power what else is it? And if seating were not important why not leave Ms Kissoon where she was in the second row? Or why not seat the Leader of the group or Chief Whip in the last row? Let’s us call a spade a spade.
If Mr Granger and Ms Ally who are mouthing that they want to change the disrespecting and disrespectful national political culture and their call is genuine, then they too must by example lead in pursuance of the change they seek by first applying it within their group. In other words, they have to be the change they require.
Thus it is unfortunate that Mr Granger, rather than being the mature one in the room over Ms Kissoon’s objection to being handled in a disrespectful manner by Ms Ally during the APNU/PNC outreach in Linden, allowed Ms Ally to flex her muscles as the Chief Whip in reseating Ms Kissoon without her prior knowledge and involvement. This is no way to treat this matter of disagreement. It exemplifies the trait of those who want to manage by command. It will not work today. Not even in a military setting where countries like the USA are revisiting the manner in which senior officers are engaging with and dispensing orders to their juniors. Times have changed and Mr Granger and Ms Ally must be aware of this, otherwise they risk being confronted or becoming fossilised.
And for what this may mean for Ms Kissoon who has handled this entire affair with dignity from the get go, I’d say she should aim to be the best back-bencher there ever was and use the power vested in her by the people of Region 10 to ensure she is given quality time to speak on matters that affect them (similar to when she was higher up in the pecking order given her parliamentary seniority and position as a geographic MP). This issue should not be a cage that contains her, but one that liberates her to continue to challenge herself and do what’s right by the people.
It is very disappointing that Mr Christopher Jones, MP and GYSM Leader when called upon to address this matter couldn’t display strength of character, choosing instead a vacuous response. Mr Granger and Ms Ally must politically evolve, do some serious introspection and realise they are abusing the power vested in them by the people.
This power is not for them to settle intra-group fictional political scores and disrespect those who will not kow-tow to them. The lesson both can take away from this is that they are living in the days when they will be held to their words. And if they are serious about changing the national political attitude, they have to remember they too will be held to what they profess.
Leaders have to practise what they preach.
Yours faithfully,
Minette Bacchus
