In an interview reported in this newspaper on October 15, 2012, Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman stated that despite the sometimes acrimonious debates and what has been described as the infrequency of sittings, the 10th Parliament has achieved significantly in its eight months of operation.
“We have reached a lot of milestones in those eight months which we had not in 40-plus years of independence,” he said.
“We were able to navigate through a very difficult and painful exercise and I think that theNational Assembly must be given credit for that. You know at every sitting I have had to give some ruling or the other. This is unprecedented,” he added.
Further, he said, “Outside of the actual Parlia-ment sittings we have had the most questions asked. I have allowed at every sitting oral questions [without notice] which were observed more in the breach. I have been allowing oral questions. It is a culture that I am trying to inculcate in the MPs,” he said.
From his vantage point and considering his historic appointment, Speaker Trotman may well feel that there were substantial accomplishments in the last eight months. The same cannot be said for the opposition parties and more importantly, the people of the country. The returns to the populace thus far from the 10th Parliament have been slim to none. The opposition has little to be proud of.
When the 10th Parliament convened in January this year with the opposition clutching a paper-thin, one-seat majority, two fundamental truths were apparent. First, control of the legislature and its committees was in the hands of the opposition and that for the first time in 20 years it had a real chance to exert itself over a government that had shown itself unwilling to distribute and share any of its power. For the opposition to impress, however, it would have to display disciplined co-ordination so that its one-seat majority was potent. It would also have to demonstrate seriousness about its legislative agenda and test the government benches.
Second, given the Westminster hybrid where the head of government doesn’t sit in Parliament but yet has powers over its output by virtue of his signature being necessary for bills to become law, there would have to be a modus vivendi crafted between the opposition MPs/leaders with the presidency otherwise gridlock and contumely would be in the ascendancy.
So what did happen over the eight months or so that Parliament functioned? The government’s game plan was well known from its previous outings. Faced with the loss of the speakership of the House and control of the committees it would yield no ground and would use every means at its disposal to thwart the opposition agenda including trying to divide APNU and the AFC, resorting frequently to the courts to stymie the legislature, commandeering the state media to propagandize and going to the court of public opinion with the most outlandish assertions. It has played true to form and continues to stick unrelentingly to its game plan.
What of the opposition? A breathtaking opportunity to shape the future of the country, table a series of bills that would signal to the public that it was serious about its task and the industrious use of committees to investigate matters and invite expert opinion on a raft of pressing areas went a-begging. From the outset, the opposition’s performance was lacklustre and disjointed and without universal recognition that their presence in Parliament only made sense if the arithmetic was always 33 versus 32 or 33 plus 32.
To date, there appears not to be a common legislative agenda between APNU and the AFC. Even within the parties there appear to be significant differences on how to move forward and this has retarded the prospect of enlightened and vital legislation in a series of areas.
Very early in the life of this Parliament, and in light of opposition control, this newspaper and others pressed the opposition about where they would enlist assistance for drafting of the slew of bills that would surely come. The opposition appeared not to have a clue. Eight months on the opposition continues to seek ways of mobilizing assistance for drafting. What has the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Granger and the AFC Leader Mr Ramjattan been doing all along? By now there should have been no less than a dozen bills on the desk of President Ramotar testing his reasonableness. There is nothing.
As we said in an editorial of June 4, 2012, Parliament up to that point had been reduced to debating motions – many from the opposition – when these needed to founded on bills as the government would otherwise not be budged or forced to show its hand. Nothing changed between that point and the sumptuous Parliamentary recess which officially ends today.
Yet there was an absolute need for both legislative and committee campaigns from the opposition: the Former Presidents Benefits Acts, the telecommunications Act, the broadcast authority bill, the access to information bill, local government reforms and elections bills, electoral reforms, revamping of GECOM and many others too numerous to mention.
Committees could have set about constitutional reform, a proper investigation of the CLICO debacle, the Skeldon factory fiasco, the crisis in policing, the rampage of Roger Khan and the phantom squad, the plight of the unemployed, how to retain trained teachers, the domestic violence epidemic and reorienting the economic bases of the country from primary commodities and non-renewable resources. There was none of this from the opposition even granted that this would have required fulltime exertions by a number of MPs. By now the government benches should have been tested with the opposition’s nominees to the all-important Public Procurement Commission. The opposition should have ensured the reactivation of the Office of the Ombudsman and the integrity commission and the robust functioning of the rights commissions. There was none of this.
The opposition will undoubtedly point to the historic 2012 budget cuts as evidence of its effectiveness. But what did it achieve? The contract employees who had been targeted by the opposition cuts remain in place and emboldened. The National Communications Network and GINA continue their trend of promoting the government at every opportunity and denying the opposition adequate access to them. And as if to underscore its defiance, the government is already ignoring opposition entreaties for tripartite treatment of next year’s budget. The opposition has to make all of the running; that was what the elections results mandated but it has so far failed to perform.
Which brings us to the second major task which the opposition has been delinquent at. Given that President Ramotar has to assent to opposition bills before they are enacted, common sense mandated that there needed to be an accommodation between the two sides, barring which the only likely outcome – as is the case now – would be stalemate and highfalutin rhetoric from the Office of the President, the Opposition and from parliament. So even if 12 bills were ready for President Ramotar’s desk next week, the opposition needed to accoutre itself with some mechanism that would ensure the passage of, at least, the crucial ones. The only way this could be assured would be through hard-nosed political negotiation. Much of the political stage has been occupied by the divisive utterances of HPS Luncheon, presidential advisor, Ms Teixeira and AG Nandlall. This stage needs clearing. Enter the President. It is either he intends to be President or to remain in the background scissoring ribbons for inconsequential events and making the obligatory visits abroad where next to nothing is achieved.
President Ramotar has eschewed sustained direct talks with the combined opposition though he made himself available for the exercise with APNU which he had mistakenly hoped would enable the smooth passage of the budget by separating it from the AFC. He must recognize that there will be no meaningful output from Parliament unless there is an honourable accommodation between the two sides and he has to affix his imprimatur to that.
The clearest example of the failure of the opposition to represent ordinary citizens was the long-running protest by Lindeners over the power tariffs. While the opposition watched on it was the action of ordinary Lindeners which turned up the pressure on the government and led to the reprehensible killing of three protesters on July 18. Had the opposition been able to harness the discontent of Lindeners in talks with the PPP/C in Parliament and at the Office of the President, the outcome would have been different.
With legislation like the former presidents benefits Act likely to trigger a showdown between the two sides in Parliament, the government and the opposition should have meaningful dialogue on what is permissible in this Act. Some provisions are repugnant and good sense must therefore prevail with the government.
The next two months of Parliament before the Christmas break will underline whether the government is prepared to compromise on important legislation and whether the opposition has the vision, fortitude and resources to get the job done.
