Right message, wrong messenger
“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 so that the head of Parliament is now the spouse of the head of Government really does not sit well with the tradition that the Speaker must act independently of the government of the day.”
IS THIS seriously the misogynistic attack on the Speaker of the House? This was the statement that led to Government MPs walking out of Parliament earlier this week. For men and women who demean, accuse and insult each other in Parliament quite often, it is funny how sensitive many of them have suddenly become.
First, not every criticism directed towards a woman is ‘misogyny’. Let’s get real.
Second, the perceived conflict of interest arising from the appointment of the prime minister’s wife as the Speaker of the House has been a longstanding concern for many Jamaicans. This issue is nothing new. From the time of her appointment as Deputy Speaker of the House, questions have been raised regarding her ability to acquit herself well in a position that requires unquestioned impartiality, given the fact that she is married to the prime minister, who heads the government.
Frankly, the concern surrounding whether she will exhibit bias is not the issue. So those saying she is perfectly capable of being unbiased have totally missed it. The perception, which has already damaged Parliament, is that she has an interest in her husband’s professional success as prime minister, and that is the conflict she must continuously contend with in the impartial office of Speaker of the House.
Again, Jamaicans have been raising this concern. This is why it is hard to understand the Government’s overblown reaction in Parliament earlier this week when the leader of the Opposition raised the issue in his budget speech. Apparently, it was “low and desperate” of him to raise the issue of good governance practices and highlight potential conflicts of interest in Parliament.
VALID CONCERNS
The concern raised was very valid. It’s just too bad a good message got stifled by the controversy surrounding the messenger’s motive.
How can the Opposition now convince anyone, six months after the appointment of the Speaker, that it is actually concerned with the potential conflict of interest when this is the first time we are hearing them express such a concern? Furthermore, the ageold issue of close familial ties in Parliament spans both sides of the political divide.
Golding says the appointment of the current Speaker doesn’t sit well with the tradition that the Speaker of the House must be independent of the government, but the truth is, our Parliament has no such tradition. Michael Peart served as Speaker of the House twice between the 2002 to 2016 period. His brother, Dean, served as a cabinet minister while he was Speaker of the House. Both represented the People’s National Party. Further, the Speaker is invariably a nominee of the party that forms the government, by virtue of its majority in the Lower House. The Speaker will therefore hardly ever be totally independent of the government.
To go a little wider, the general culture in Parliament seems to have allowed many families to make their nest in Parliament, such that two or more family members may be serving i n different parliamentary roles at the same time.
The point here is that the ‘tradition’ is not quite what the Opposition is making it out to be. But who cares? Our Parliament does not need to be guided by tradition. If we can all agree that a conflict of interest arises every time two immediate family members enter Gordon House together, at least from a voting perspective, the precedent or tradition does not need to matter.
Especially within the context of a generally high perception of corruption and given that Parliament has been plagued with criticisms of nepotism and cronyism for over 60 years now, it is not at all unreasonable for us to take a second look at some of the parliamentary practices that contribute to the culture of mistrust among citizens in regard to the political class.
The wife of the prime minister should never have been nominated to the position of Speaker of the House. But she was. And not one parliamentarian from either side opposed her nomination. In fact, her nomination was seconded by an MP from the Opposition. The Opposition leader’s criticism will therefore hardly be seen as a genuine concern. And to make matters worse, the Opposition’s explanation for the inconsistency in their position is that the tradition has been for the Opposition to support whatever nomination the government makes for the role of Speaker. Underwhelming and unimpressive.
We need an opposition that doesn’t rely on public outrage to determine its own position on matters of principle.