The private sector’s interventions on political matters have not always been appropriate or defensible, but at least the most recent ones concerning events in Parliament have plain common sense to recommend them. Yesterday we reported the President of the Georgetown Chamber of Industry and Commerce Clinton Urling as calling on parliamentarians to move away from the impasse on Minister Clement Rohee, compromise, and focus on more important issues such as constitutional and local government reform, the National Insurance Scheme review and next year’s budget.
Certainly the opposition had a case in calling for Mr Rohee’s removal as Minister of Home Affairs, but if they had any real expectation that he would either resign of his own volition or that the President would ask for his resignation or that the governing party would not circle the wagons around him, they were living in a fantasy universe. Having hit the proverbial brick wall on that score, they changed tack to bring a motion in the National Assembly last week to prevent Mr Rohee from addressing the House in his capacity as minister. And so on Thursday the nation was treated to five hours of testy exchanges ending in a partial gag order imposed by the Speaker on Mr Rohee – although it does not prevent him speaking as member of the House – and the substantive issue referred to the Committee of Privileges. In the meantime, Parliament is adjourned yet again until December 17 with nothing much accomplished.
Of course both sides now have a lot of face to lose which is why the nation has had to endure all this nonsense in the National Assembly. It is a pity that at a practical level, the combined opposition did not recognize from the beginning that the most they could achieve on this particular front was to make their position on Mr Rohee clear, because they lack the power under the constitution to get him to step down. For the rest, up to this point they have simply been indulging in empty gestures so they can demonstrate to their supporters they are exacting some sort of ‘penalty’ on the Minister; empty gestures, however, are meaningless and never did advance a cause.
The truth of the matter is that the failings of Minister Rohee in the security sector are the failings of the entire government, and by extension, the ruling party as well. Leaving aside the Minister’s personal shortcomings in the discharge of his duties, what is required in the first instance is a whole change of policy and approach on the part of the administration, otherwise whoever sits in the Brickdam office will fail spectacularly, or at least consistently. The point is, the issue concerning Mr Rohee could have either waited for a more opportune time, or been dealt with in a far less disruptive way; trying to prevent him from speaking in the House is hardly the most imaginative route to registering opposition to his record as minister. APNU and the AFC should not have been frittering away limited parliamentary sessions on something which is not a high priority in terms of the lives of the citizens, and is only interrupting the work the voters put them there to discharge – more especially if they possibly had less confrontational options at their disposal.
As we also reported yesterday, the Private Sector Commission was drafting a plan to meet with all parliamentarians to discuss the stalemate, a reprise it seems of the luncheon held last month on the gridlock in the National Assembly. Whether it will actually achieve anything remains to be seen; our political parties on the whole have never been too amenable to making concessions in circumstances where they feel there is a lot of face to lose, and in this case, it is likely the opposition which would have to agree to scale down its action, since the government side will not amend its stance on Mr Rohee at this point.
Perhaps, however, the government could be coaxed into placing discussions within a larger context, so they concentrate their minds on a critical issue the PSC had raised earlier, namely the matter of the budget. Of course, they will not want to hold any consultations with the opposition about what the latter might wish to see included, let alone be held to any agreements which are made if they do meet, but if the opposition changes its current tactics on the matter of the Minister, it would be much easier for the private sector to give the administration strong encouragement to meet APNU and the AFC on budget issues under clearly agreed guidelines. If the government declines to do that, despite a position in favour of it declared publicly by the Private Sector Commission, then it will carry the responsibility for any impasse on the budget when it comes to parliament. It might be observed in passing that it is possible (although not certain) some of the steam may be taken out of the Rohee issue anyway, while all sides await the outcome of the decision of the Committee of Privileges.
The other issue in need of urgent attention, as Mr Urling rightly said, are the bills covering local government reform. Of course, the government wants to postpone local government elections for as long as possible, so its unilaterally imposed interim management committees have enough time to work. For its part, however, the opposition should be pushing for agreement on legislation; whatever the situation in relation to the Guyana Elections Commission and the timing of elections, the first step requires that the framework be in place. But nothing has been heard on that subject for a considerable time.
As far as the public is concerned, no work of any substance has been accomplished in Parliament, especially since the recess, and the blame for that is being carried by the opposition. The PPP/C’s tiresome stalling and blocking tactics admittedly make them extraordinarily difficult to negotiate with, but the combined opposition has not demonstrated that it has any kind of plan to deal with the government in parliament. The two parties do not seem to meet on a regular schedule with each other to discuss priorities, approaches, strategy and tactics, and the general impression they convey is one of disarray. At no time was this more evident than on Thursday, when until Ms Debbie Backer got up to speak, APNU – whose motion it was – appeared sloppy in their presentation. That is not the way to manage the people’s business; the National Assembly is not a public theatre and the voters expect that MPs will conscientiously do their homework to represent the electorate to the best of their ability.
That aside, one has only to wonder why it is that the combined opposition is allowing the government to manage a political game which the latter has created, and is playing by the latter’s rules, because an impasse which can be laid at the door of the two parties is what the government seeks. If indeed it is the case that the ruling party would like a snap election at some point, then it would wish to have that in a situation where the opposition could be fully blamed for any stalemate; the argument would be that it is the opposition which has made government impossible – and it is an argument which probably would find sympathetic ears among the larger public at the moment.
The opposition needs to do some restrategising. First, they have to accept that they are in Parliament to work for the people, and they should not be sidetracked into cul-de-sacs where they will be the ones seen to be impeding the conduct of normal parliamentary business. Of course, the government will do its best to avoid compromise and stymie progress in all priority spheres, but the opposition should expect that, and devise approaches now to deal with it, so it is clear exactly who is creating the gridlock if one is inevitable. If the private sector organizations, for example, succeed in moving the government from absolutist positions on priority issues, the opposition should seize the moment, and demonstrate that it is prepared to work with the administration to move the country forward.
The opposition majority of one comes about only if the two parties concerned act in concert. APNU in particular, has to recognize that reality, and acknowledge that creating strategies – particularly deft ones – takes work, discussion and cooperation. Clearly as mentioned above it has no strategy in the current situation, and as the larger party, it has to create the framework for regular consultation with the AFC so there can be sensible, coordinated approaches to the various scenarios which are likely to arise. Most of all, there has to be a lower volume in the National Assembly, and an attempt made to avoid the high decibel utterances of the governing party. An exchange of vulgarities wearies everyone, and confirms a perception that politicians in general are not interested in doing anything for the people, simply in playing their own game.
