Dear Editor,
Parliamentary pugnacity? I like it. But only up to a point, and that which is infused thoroughly with the best of the Queen’s English in full flight, and resonant with all the literary and oratorical devices, associated vocabularies, style, and wit that can be brought to bear. Incidentally, the occasional Creolese is acceptable, too.
I hear the president’s stand regarding conduct on this issue; but I take leave to depart from what prevails in these climes.
Heckling is acceptable, even encouraged, once delivered with aplomb. Yet care must be exercised to purge such of any deep malice or grievous intent. Thrust and parry are occupational requirements, if not hazards, but must be accomplished through nuanced demeanor, sharp repartee, and the essences of studied nonchalance.
Let watchers, especially younger ones, be inundated with the classy, and the reverberating thunder of powerful performances. At all costs, the coarse spectacle of the marketplace and the liquor places must be abandoned. The many that lack the finesse can learn from the few who do.
I had toyed with the thought of taking the children to observe a parliamentary session. I thought it was better to save them by indefinite postponement.
Still, there must be recognition-and thanks-that sometimes clumsy, many times furious exchanges at the local level have not deteriorated further. One remembers that in 1856, Sen. Charles Sumner of Massachusetts was blindsided and caned into unconsciousness right on the hallowed U.S. Senate floor, by Rep. Preston Brooks of South Carolina during the scorching philippics on slavery. During that savage attack, Congressman Henry Edmondson interfered with those who rushed to rescue the prostrate defenceless Sumner.
In England, on March 2, 1629, the House of Commons was the scene where the Speaker of the House was forcibly prevented by five members from leaving his chair. Then, in late 1641, during the fierce debates on the Grand Remonstrance presented to Charles I, swords were actually drawn in the English lower house. And who can forget the profanity meted out to Archbishop Thomas Becket in sacred space. At the core, it was about political differences.
What is the point of all of this? It is that though these incidents were hundreds of years ago; supposedly civilized men did exhibit rather barbaric impulses and natures. Guyanese should be thankful that matters have not ruptured to such a grotesque state here, and while elected representatives have gotten out of hand, it is more from exuberance, over lubrication (or lack of) and an absence of polish than anything else.
Now our legislators do not have to be the brightest bulbs; but they must prepare, anticipate, exploit, and overpower. They must overpower with intelligence, thinking on feet, and an all-encompassing grasp of the issue at hand, the wider audience, and the texture of the moment. This might prove to be too much for too many. It is why I say that local parliamentarians must remember not to make bigger fools of themselves in prime time, or any other time.
To put all of this in its proper place, I have always advocated and practised giving a man his own head in his hand; and have him then shake my hand for doing so. The same should be a regular part of parliamentary proceedings here.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
