Parliament is at the heart of our democracy, or it should be. Whether it is or not depends in the first instance on its structure and functions within the larger constitutional framework, and in the second on how it conducts its business. Changes to the first would involve constitutional amendments at some level, and there seems to be some public appetite for this in so far as it relates to electoral reform at least.
But even if, for the sake of argument, we were to install a reformed National Assembly which was designed in such a way as to address some of our more intractable political conundrums, it still would not mean that it would be recognized as having the premier status in terms of our democracy, or that it could function in the way it was set up to do. For that it needs respect, both from MPs and from the public, although it is the former who must always take it seriously if the latter is to do likewise.
The problem is that the standard of behaviour in our Parliament has been deteriorating for quite some years, although it reached its nadir during the current Budget debate. But who can forget certain of its antecedents, such as former minister Simona Broomes with her 2017 video mimicking the antics of a Guyanese holidaying in Paris, only in her case using the chambers of the National Assembly as her backdrop?
To cite another example there was the drowning out of then President David Granger’s address to Parliament the same year by the opposition PPP/C benches. Under the leadership of Mr Bharrat Jagdeo, placards were carried into the House and there was chanting and the periodic thumping of desks so the head of state’s speech could not be heard. So much for a law-making institution which is also supposed to facilitate the exchange of ideas, the elucidation of government policies and criticism of the same, and the questioning of ministers in relation to the discharge of their duties. If the ruling party is complaining about opposition behaviour (and it too was guilty during the present sessions) it should also remember the role it has played in getting us to this point.
Even when there are no disruptions, it is not as if the level of argument in Parliament is an inspiration to anyone in the normal course of proceedings. MPs, and by extension, the public, are treated to long, turgid set pieces which are read out. There is little or no speaking off-the-cuff unless it is to deliver an insult, and if a citizenry nostalgic for less rancorous times still hankers after meaningful debate, it will of necessity be disappointed.
One has to wonder what our parliamentary representatives think they are there to do, and what they believe the rest of us pay their salaries for. They have transformed the Chamber into a forum where they abuse and disparage one another like two antagonistic clans squabbling incessantly in a futile effort to obtain advantage. What this has to do with executing the people’s business, only they can say.
Part of the problem lies in the quality of some of the party recruits to the Lists on both sides. Mr Granger soon demonstrated he had no feel for talent, or at least, he valued unquestioning loyalty over some level of competence, hard work, and a preparedness to acquire a modicum of expertise in a specific area of government. The story is not so very different in the case of the ruling party either, which has also long regarded loyalty as the primary qualification for any kind of position.
It is true, of course, that the practice of politics falls into two categories: the acquisition (and maintenance) of power and governing a country. Our politicians appear to devote most of their energies to the former, and in the case of whoever is in opposition to weakening a government rather than building up their knowledge base in order to be in a position to challenge it on substantive issues. Even those in office spend an inordinate amount of time criticising their predecessors and whatever they did during a previous administration rather than enlarging on their policies. In other words, they sometimes behave more as if they are in opposition than in government. It is a reflection of our ultra-partisan universe.
It will inevitably be pointed out that our dysfunctional politics have always been with us, but that Parliament has in the past nevertheless been regarded as a rather more venerable institution than it is at present. Again, the answer lies in the total non-comprehension of some of those who occupy its benches today as to what the significance of it really is, and above all else, what their true functions are in relation to it. Not a few of the men and women who sat in the House before them were intellectually impressive, had a grasp of their portfolios or shadow responsibilities and could rise to a bit of wit and humour when heckling. They would have been appalled by the hurling of the racist, homophobic and sexist remarks which were reported on last week, or the utter vulgarity of a member of the government side.
The problem is not without salvage if those with the power to do something about it choose to act. It may be the case that for the time being, at least, the chorus of criticism which has greeted last week’s indefensible behaviour in the National Assembly will serve as a brake on the perpetrators’ less worthy instincts, but no one should depend on it. In any case, this incident will sooner or later be forgotten, and members will likely revert to their previous ways.
The people at the party level who conceivably could exert the most pressure on offenders are less likely to be the Whips, than the leaders of the PPP/C and APNU. Not the Leader of the Opposition Joseph Harmon, who is not without a reputation for crassness, but Mr David Granger, who is always eloquent and civil and would not have been impressed by members’ conduct last week. Mr Bharrat Jagdeo who leads the PPP is far from being above censure where bigoted statements and worse are involved, nevertheless he has enough political sense to know when to change direction. The point about these two men is that under the present system they are the Representatives of the List, which means that as a last resort they could threaten to replace an MP if that person persisted in refusing to display decorum in the Chamber.
The situation is more complicated for Mr Granger, because of the accord with the AFC, and it is the comments of some AFC members which were said to have been the most offensive during the Budget debate. One cannot believe, however, that this problem would be insuperable, or that Mr Khemraj Ramjattan would not exert himself if requested to see the delinquents in his party brought into line.
Whether the party hierarchies will understand the damage that has been done to the institution of Parliament, and if they do, will rein in their members to restore its credibility, is by no means a foregone conclusion. Whether they do or not the main line of defence against impropriety in the House is always the Speaker. The problem is that the new Speaker, Mr Manzoor Nadir, is not in control of proceedings. He made no interventions to try and stop the invective last week, so unsurprisingly it continued unabated. His predecessors would not have tolerated it, and the previous occupant of the Chair, Dr Barton Scotland was not above lecturing MPs about their behaviour and certainly expressed displeasure over Ms Broomes’ impermissable travelogue. “Our predecessors left us a legacy of decorum and good practice for this House,” he was quoted as saying; “I ask: What shall we leave our successors?”
Mr Nadir would do well to ponder that. It is true he is not a lawyer as all those who have gone before him have been, but he has sat in Parliament for many years and must be familiar with its conventions and privileges. In any case, one does not have to be a lawyer to recognize unparliamentary behaviour. If he feels he cannot keep a grip on proceedings in future then perhaps he should review his political options. The House cannot function as it should, particularly in the present circumstances, unless a resolute Speaker is prepared to confront incivility in all its forms and act without fear or favour.
Everyone involved in this saga appears to have failed to understand the role key institutions have to play if any viable society is to become entrenched. Without institutions such as Parliament we will simply not have a democracy. Even if they are there in name but are undermined in practice the nation cannot evolve because there will be no institutional traditions to provide a basis for progress. And traditions are the way in which an institution’s legitimacy becomes generally accepted and it is recognised across the board as one of the pillars of society. Without respect, however, there will be no legitimacy, and there will be no respect on the part of the public if parliamentarians themselves do not respect the House and its rules.
