The British House of Commons is not the last word in ergonomic comfort. It accommodates 650 MPs with difficulty on cushioned benches, albeit with back support, facing each other across an aisle of less than generous width. This is in contrast to the US Senate which is much more commodious, and where 100 senators are ranged in a semi-circle, each with their own desk and chair, facing the Speaker. Many modern parliaments favour this arrangement because it is seen as less structurally adversarial when discussing the nation’s business.
But despite the greater numbers there is something infinitely more personal and intimate about the British Parliament, where the frontbenchers, and perhaps some of the backbenchers too, can almost look the opposition in the eye, and where everyone can see everyone else’s face, read their body language and in many cases answer their interrogators or accusers in a context which allows for more of the characteristics of a private exchange.
American tourists who watch from the visitors’ gallery are no doubt taken aback by how noisy and raucous the British House can sometimes be in comparison with their own invariably civil Senate. For all of that, interventions and questions have to be expressed within the parameters of certain rules; outright insults or crude vilification is simply not allowed.
Guyana does not have benches, their 65 MPs being rather better catered for than their British counterparts. They have individual chairs and long tables, although, as in the House of Commons, government and opposition face one another. Owing to the fact that this is such a small society and many of its stalwart representatives have been around for so long, most of those who sit in the Chamber will not be strangers to anyone else there.
That said, local MPs are infinitely more offensive to those across the divide than is the case in the Commons. Abuse is sometimes the substitute for wit despite the fact that members should be hemmed in by the same conventions as pertain to the British Parliament. The reason these have not been applied in recent times is because of the weakness of the Speaker, who has not always displayed the fortitude necessary to confront offenders. A more punctilious adherence to the code of conduct would redound to a more acceptable tone of exchange in the Assembly, even if it might not of itself raise the level of debate.
But there is one particularly important distinction between the British and Guyanese systems – although not the only one − which was on display last Wednesday. On that day British MPs had been recalled from the parliamentary recess for an emergency debate on Afghanistan. The benches were packed, hardly any members being unprepared to forgo their holidays in order to attend.
Prime Minister Boris Johnson enjoys a very large majority in the House, in addition to which he is popular among most members of his party. Under normal circumstances he is a politician who likes an audience and knows how to play to a crowd, so a crowded Commons could be expected to be the kind of environment where he could show off his oratorical skills. It was not to be.
He had not proceeded very far into his speech when the hostile interventions started. It was not so much that some of these originated with the opposition, which after all, was to be expected, it was that many of them came from his own back benches. In the end 30 of his own MPs joined in publicly censuring him, while only a handful indicated support. There were certain Tory members who inevitably were listened to with especial interest, one of these being the former prime minister whom Johnson replaced, Theresa May. To his discomfiture, no doubt, she spoke of a failure of foreign policy, and in reference to his much touted slogan ‘Global Britain’ asked, “Where is Global Britain on the streets of Kabul?”
Labour Party Leader Keir Starmer delivered a clinical, analytical speech reflective of the Director of Public Prosecutions he once was, taking aim at both the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for going on holiday during the crisis. Dominic Raab was in Crete when Kabul fell, only returning last Sunday night. “You cannot coordinate an international response from the beach,” Starmer told him in response to his question. While the Labour leader did experience one intervention as well as some anger from the government benches over the holiday jibe, he was on the whole listened to quite quietly by the Tory benches. It was as if what he had to say resonated better with them than what their own leader had to say.
But the highlight of the debate was the speech by Conservative member Tom Tugendhat for which everyone was waiting. Chairman of the Parliamentary Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Tugendhat had served in Afghanistan and had already made his views known in no uncertain terms on Twitter. There was a complete hush when he rose to speak, one BBC reporter saying you could have heard a pin drop. He gave a moving presentation, opening by saying that like other veterans he had had to “struggle through anger, grief and rage.” It might be mentioned in passing that he also took aim at President Joe Biden’s comments on the Afghan army, describing it as “shameful” for him to call into question “the courage of the men I fought with”. It was a sentiment which was echoed by other veterans in the Chamber. He was applauded at the end of his speech, something which is rare in the Commons where technically speaking it is not allowed.
Some MPs commented that it was unfortunate there had been no vote following the debate, because the government would have lost.
The point about all this is that in our Chamber it is inconceivable that anyone from either party would rise in Parliament to criticise their own leader. If they did so, they would soon find themselves removed from the National Assembly and replaced by someone else. It is the pernicious list system which is the cause of this aberration. A list of candidates is submitted by a party on Nomination Day before a general election, but voters do not know at that stage which of the names on the list will represent them in Parliament.
That decision is taken by the Representative of the List for each party, namely, Vice-President Bharrat Jagdeo for the PPP/C and Mr David Granger for APNU+AFC. Exactly how they arrive at their decisions is not always obvious to the public, and in the case of Mr Granger’s choices led to considerable criticism. Just as the Representative of the List can appoint, so he can dismiss at whim, leaving all MPs at the mercy of their leadership and democracy diminished as a consequence.
Britain, of course, has a constituency system, and MPs there are not dependent on their leaders so they can speak their minds in the Commons if they see fit. In the case of the current government, for example, parliamentarians are chosen by the constituencies they represent, and Mr Johnson is in no position to get rid of Mr Tugendhat, for instance, even if he wanted to. A Prime Minister does have control over his cabinet, of course, although following a surge of backbench pressure, a member will sometimes be dropped, or given a different portfolio.
Guyana in general terms has a modified system of proportional representation, so no MP can be held to account by the region they are supposed to represent. Had there been a constituency system then Ms Volda Lawrence, who is generally thought to have brought in the votes from South Georgetown to APNU, would have been in Parliament. But she is not, even although she is Chairperson of the PNCR. There are good reasons, of course, for there being a PR system in this country which hardly need elaboration. But there is no excuse for not creating an effective hybrid arrangement; after all other countries have done that successfully, and there are different models which could be investigated.
But what prevents the politicians on both sides from exploring this route, along with other possible constitutional changes is simply that they like things as they are. They like the control. They dislike criticism, particularly in a public venue. Until the leaders in this country change their attitudes we will not see the kind of dynamic debate which took place in the House of Commons last week become possible on the floor of our own Chamber.
