Parliamentary petulance

HOPEFULLY, THERE will be a mature sitting of Parliament today, without Tuesday’s contrived outrage and childish petulance by Prime Minister Andrew Holness and his Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) colleagues.

In other words, Opposition Leader Mark Golding and the other People’s National Party (PNP) legislators have an obligation to stay put and respectfully listen to Mr Holness’ contribution to the Budget Debate – even if they vehemently disagree with his statements – once they are not being vulgarly disrespected and their right to participate in the work of Parliament is not being infringed. That is the essence of democracy.

It is perhaps too much, though, to suggest that Mr Golding be allowed to complete his speech from Tuesday, cut short by the walkout by government members that brought the House below the quorum for sittings.

In the event, Mr Golding might be disinclined to accept such an offer and risk upsetting the political symbolism of having read the final few paragraphs of his Budget remarks in the streets outside the legislature, to the backdrop of Gordon House, the current legislative building, and Headquarters House, the pre-Independence Parliament. He now has the embryo of a political lore, to be milked by his People’s National Party (PNP) for generations.

Mr Golding’s speech was, until the Government’s theatre, a significant one. For the first time as president of the PNP and leader of the parliamentary Opposition, he offered extensive and coherent policy prescriptions and contrasted his party’s vision for Jamaica with that of Mr Holness’ administration. In the past, Mr Golding and the PNP mostly sold snippets and vagaries, seemingly intent on coming to government on the implosion of the administration, rather than on the values of its policies. It was on the question of governance, especially the issue of low levels of trust in the society, and how a PNP administration would address the issue differently than Mr Holness’ JLP, that caused the eruption of the House.

Mr Golding said: “When the former Speaker was forced to resign as a result of an Integrity Commission investigation, the move to replace her with the wife of the prime minister (Juliet Holness), so that the head of Parliament is now the spouse of the head of government, does not sit well with the tradition that the Speaker must act independently of the government of the day.”

He was about to go on to highlight the Integrity Commission’s (IC) failure to certify two years worth of assets and liabilities filings by the prime minister and urge the PM to “take away” himself.

The prime minister, shouting “low and desperate”, shuffled up his documents and walked out of the chamber. He was followed by his colleagues.

Everald Warmington, the controversial government member of parliament who was standing in the chamber trading insults with the Opposition, brought to the attention of Deputy Speaker Heroy Clarke the fact that there was no longer a quorum for the sitting to continue. The quorum of the House is 16 other than the Speaker. The PNP has 14 MPs, insufficient, even if all were present, to form a quorum.

Ms Holness, who presided at the session, was not in the chair at the time of the fracas.

NEITHER RUDE NOR MISOGYNISTIC

Mr Golding and his party may well be accused of cynical opportunism in raising the potential for conflict of interest with respect to the Holnesses at this time, after the momentum it gained in last month’s close municipal elections. After all, the leader of the Opposition Business in the House, Phillip Paulwell, had seconded her nomination and joined in the traditional dragging the Speaker to her chair.

Paulwell has claimed that he was merely following tradition, although the Opposition was not consulted on Ms Holness’ ascension. Notwithstanding that development, Mr Golding’s position is that Ms Holness has not performed with the probity, even-handedness and transparency expected of the Speaker.

While the PNP’s and Mr Golding’s posture can be scrutinised and lambasted for inconsistency, two things are clear. First, questions about possible conflict of interest with respect to Ms Holness being given the Speaker’s job are not new. They arose in several quarters prior to, and after, her elevation.

Second, and more importantly, with respect to Tuesday’s events, Mr Golding was neither rude nor misogynistic, as has been claimed by his JLP critics. His words were perhaps biting, but his tone was measured and respectful. It takes a great deal of elasticity to stretch his criticisms to an issue of gender.

The Government has two opportunities to address Mr Golding’s critique of its policies, including the question of governance and the particular circumstance of the Holnesses: the prime minister’s speech today and Finance Minister Nigel Clarke’s closing Budget statement on Tuesday.

These are not to descend into a rancorous quarrel, abusive prattle, or walkouts. It is up to Mr Holness to maturely delineate why his party remains the better option to form the Government and he as prime minister. He can dismantle Mr Golding’s hypocrisy – if that, indeed, was what it was – over the Speaker’s position.

Dr Clarke, on Tuesday, has another opportunity to defend his economic policies.