One of the advantages of the parliamentary aspect of Guyana’s semi-presidential political system is that it could foster consensus in ethnically divided and conflict-ridden situations (Lijphart, Arend (1984) ‘Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty- One Countries,’ Yale University Press). This advantage has, however, remained unrealized throughout the post-independence period in which, in spite of its potential to bring consensus, the speakership (Speaker and Deputy) has fallen prey to its contentious environment. (‘Criticism of Speaker’s character, actions not permitted:’ SN: 11/08/2020).
Immediately after the elections of 2011 resulted in a hung parliament and the PNCR and AFC used the opportunity to grab both the position of Speaker and Deputy Speaker, I noted that notwithstanding all their promises during the elections campaign of creating a new inclusive political culture, their behaviour suggested that nothing had changed. ‘The PPP/C is correct in its claim that the opposition has behaved in an unprincipled manner … This could have far-reaching consequences depending on how the PPP/C decides to go forward, and one must hope that it leans towards a national position rather than the partisan one to which it has been more historically inclined’ (Opposition made huge blunder. SN: 18/01/2012). It appears that in Guyana political leaders cannot see beyond their wretched history, for here we are in 2020 and in collaboration with a group of smaller parties playing the role of the AFC, the PPP/C has not disappointed!
There is much talk about there being a convention that the Deputy Speaker should come from the major parliamentary opposition but our political history is not clear. From 1964 to 1976 the government (PNC/UF) side kept both positions, but from 1976 to 1992 the deputyship was given to the PPP. However, being awarded the deputy speakership is largely meaningless if one is never given the opportunity to use it, and during the PNC’s term in government under the legendary speakership of the late Sase Narine – 1971 to1992 – he was rarely, if ever, absent from the National Assembly. Given the opportunity during the hung parliament of 2011, the PNCR+AFC again took both positions but the period 1976 to 1992 is more than a generation so there might be some justification in referring to the practice of the opposition having the deputy speakership as a convention (Chronicle: 03/10/2012).
In 2011, the speakership was given to Raphael Trotman of the AFC and the deputyship to Debra Backer of the PNCR, and the reason given for breaking the convention substantiates the point made in the first paragraph. The parties claimed that Mr. Trotman, who is a lawyer, might find it impossible to be in the National Assembly on important occasions and so they needed a solid backup! Why did they need a ‘solid backup’? Because in Guyana, notwithstanding claims to the contrary, the speakership is expected to be partisan!
In some political jurisdictions such as the United States of America, the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore (the Vice-President of the US) of Senate are highly political positions, as could be observed on a daily basis on any of the major international media networks. The Speaker does not usually chair meetings of the House – that is usually assigned to another member of the majority party. On the other hand, in Westminster-type parliamentary systems Speakers are usually expected to be and act in a neutral manner, but in Guyana this has not been the case.
The existence of a non-partisan Speaker who has the respect of the country and the National Assembly and could facilitate the warring parties finding solutions to difficult issues is a sine qua non if the parliamentary advantage is to be realised. Briefly, not unlike in Guyana, in the United Kingdom the Speaker of the House of Commons, with the aid of his three deputies, is responsible for managing the House and represents that body nationally and internationally. In this role the Speaker chairs meetings of the House, deciding who and when MPs can speak and what constitutes proper behaviour, and disciplining MPs when necessary, etc. Institutional conditions to make neutrality a reality do not exist in Guyana and contemporary British parliamentary practice suggests approaches that may be useful.
Firstly, unlike Guyana, the MP who becomes the Speaker of the House of Commons must abandon and be seen to have abandoned all party connections, although s/he remains an MP with constituency duties. At elections time the Speaker does not campaign for any party and is not challenged in his/her constituency by the major political parties. If, after elections, the Speaker wishes to continue in office this requires a motion in the House passed by a simple majority. To be initially elected Speaker the candidate must be nominated by at least twelve MPs, at least three of whom must be of a different party from the candidate (this avoids a super majority requirement but help to assure that the Speaker has the support of the assembly as a whole). The House then votes by secret ballot, if necessary for several rounds until victory is arrived at by way of an absolute majority of more than 50% of the votes cast. Furthermore, like in Guyana, by convention, when the House is tied the Speaker has a casting vote which is used in favour of further debate or of the status quo.
Secondly, when it comes to the election of the three Deputy Speakers, until 2010, they were appointed by the House on a motion moved by a government minister, but since then they have been elected by secret ballot similar to the Speaker. To enhance impartiality, the practice is that the Speaker’s team should show a balance between Government and Opposition benches, should reflect the gender balance within the House, that the candidates are acceptable to the House as a whole and to establish balance, that two candidates must come from the opposite side of the House to that from which the Speaker was drawn. (file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/SN05375%20(2).pdf).
The Constitution of Guyana (Articles 56, 157, etc.) approaches the Speakership from the traditional majoritarian position and the Standing Orders of Parliament are essentially about the management of the National Assembly. Issues such as those considered in the previous two paragraphs are largely left to conventions and I again suggest that Guyana’s political history and context are not sufficiently mature for one to leave such important matters to the will of politicians. In so far as the speakership is concerned, to win the advantages of Guyana’s parliamentary-type arrangement the necessary requirements should be codified within the constitution or ordinary law.
