Parliament

At its simplest level democracy is a form of government which seeks to accommodate citizens who hold a variety of viewpoints so they do not descend into strife. Direct democracy, such as the Greeks knew it when free males would gather in the square to vote on every political issue, is hardly practical in the modern world, although it would be theoretically possible in technologically advanced societies given modern communication networks. In Western countries today it is representative democracy – there are several different forms of this – which is found, including in Guyana.

Every five years our electorate votes a party into office to function as the executive, and all the representatives both from the winning party and others (bar the President), sit in the Parliament where the acts which circumscribe our lives are debated – or should be − and passed. In addition to any discussion of proposed legislation at this level, there are also five standing committees where a more detailed examination of a draft statute can take place in the shape of the Constitutional Reform, Natural Resources, Economic Services, Social Services and Foreign Relations Committees.

These would appear on the surface to represent reasonable avenues for rational exchanges on Bills and the like and would open a pathway for possible amendments which could then be put to the larger body for adoption. No one is in any doubt about the poisonous relationship between our two major ethno-political parties, which obviates against them listening to each other and co-operating on essential measures. This does not mean that they always have to be in agreement – an impossibility and not even desirable – but it does mean that they should find common ground, at least at the level of principle, on certain key matters of which oil, together with its ramifications is one. Parliament should be the centrepiece of our democracy, but it is functioning poorly. Part of the reason is that MPs do not take their job seriously, and it becomes a forum for set pieces and confrontation, not debate. In addition, some of our representatives are not up to a level which would enable them to discharge their responsibilities in any effective way and have little understanding of what a functioning National Assembly should be like.

Over the years we have witnessed all manner of impermissible disruptions to the work of the Parliament, as well as the public expression of vulgar language and insults of one kind or another when it is in session. While the most recent egregious example came from APNU+AFC MPs who created mayhem on December 29 last year, the problem is by no means confined to them; the PPP/C has it own disreputable record, especially during the period when the coalition was in government. The pattern seems to be that when in opposition any

kind of disturbance passes muster, and when in government, rushing through legislation without allowing time for meaningful debate is the favoured approach.

It is the case that the eight members involved in the December outrage were referred to the Privileges Committee, which last week recommended their suspension. This decision has now been challenged in court by APNU+AFC on the grounds that it was “unconstitutional, null, void and of no legal effect, a breach of the principles of natural justice,” since they were not granted a right to a hearing.

Whatever the outcome of the court case the general point remains, and that is no matter the provocation, MPs are not voted into Parliament to engage in physical altercations, but to represent the electorate by employing cogent argument, or at least by articulating rational positions. When debates do take place, apart from the wearisome nature of some of the speeches, it has to be remarked that the wits have all disappeared; there are no more Boysie Ramkarrans or Forbes Burnhams around. The last member with any feel for humorous repartee was the late Ms Debbie Backer. Tedium of delivery would be acceptable if the content had less polemic and more explanation and reasoning. In a general sense the reading of the Budget is the only arguable exception, at least where content is concerned.

On the whole, however, neither side is disposed to discussion and any level of compromise, and when in office both consider their one-seat majority gives them the mandate to make all the decisions without any input from any other party or interest group. This is in addition to the PPP’s proclivity for attempting to control all spaces in the society, which is what happened in the case of the aforementioned Natural Resources Fund Bill. In a Page One comment the following day this newspaper said: “By passing a bill which gives it absolute oversight control, the PPP/C government has already effectively undermined the Board of Directors it intends to put in place. This board is already handicapped and will be looked at with great suspicion as if they were handmaidens of Freedom House.” As in other Commonwealth jurisdictions our Parliament does have a referee in the form of a Speaker. These appointees vary in terms of their levels of competence, their familiarity with the Standing Orders and parliamentary practice, the degree to which they behave impartially, and the extent to which they are able to impose their personalities on the House to exert control. The present incumbent appears to be challenged in all those departments, as a consequence of which the House is more undisciplined than ever. His lack of authority was particularly in evidence during the Budget debate, when all kinds of vulgarities were allowed to pass on both sides without action being taken.

Both major parties seem to believe that the Speaker has a partisan role, and that his decisions should reflect the inclinations of whichever of them is in government, although not all Speakers have obliged them. The one caveat to this was that traditionally a Deputy Speaker always came from the opposition, but Mr David Granger inexcusably abandoned this practice when the coalition acceded to office in 2015. This has allowed the current government to avoid the appointment of anyone from the major opposition to the post, naming instead the inexperienced Mr Lennox Shuman, who occupies a seat shared with two other parties and who will have to vacate it in the not-too-distant future. While the quality of MPs and their behaviour in the House are clearly problems, there are, in fairness, systemic issues involved which were pointed out by Mr Ralph Ramkarran in a column earlier this year. What we have is part-time MPs, who need full-time jobs in order to make ends meet. It is hardly surprising, therefore, that parliamentary committees in particular cannot function properly when in addition they have few staff and no research assistants, while “[g]overnment agencies cannot be effectively required to produce documents and … answer questions…”

He also made reference to the constitutional commissions, namely, Ethnic Relations, Human Rights, Women and Gender Equality, Indigenous Peoples and Rights of the Child, whose functions, a secretariat and tribunals are provided for in the Constitution. “A unified secretariat, with representatives for each body … properly staffed and equipped has never been established. The Human Rights Commission is yet to be established, more than twenty years later.” He goes on to say that neither the government nor the opposition have made much effort to have these bodies function “optimally”, or even at all.

There is an argument for saying that MPs should be paid at a level to make them largely full-time, and there should be restrictions on earnings from outside jobs as well as in terms of their time demands. Certainly there should be research assistants employed in Parliament so that members can be much better informed and more professional in the way they operate in the House, and there should be more staff to facilitate the efficient functioning of the committees.

Perhaps the quality of MPs arguably might improve if there were constitutional changes which made them answerable to specific constituencies. Several commentators have put forward various suggestions as to how a constituency system can be married with a proportional representation one. In any event, we need to move away from the pernicious List arrangement which also has a role to play in divorcing MPs from the voters they represent, making them answerable to the party alone. As our Page One comment in relation to the events of December 29 said, this debacle “underlines how far removed the ordinary citizens of this country are from any sensible leadership in securing their interests.”

The problem is that neither party has evinced any interest in making changes in the electorate’s interest as opposed to their own.