Dear Editor
On Tuesday, June 17, I had the opportunity to visit the National Assembly as part of the four-week Blue CAPS’ Building Communities through Leadership Training & Service (BCLTS) programme.
It was my first time visiting the Parliament Building and I was relishing every moment of it.
After a brief tour of the august building, we were joined by Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman who invited us to sit in the actual chairs used by members of parliament.
Mr Trotman gave us a detailed history of parliamentary chambers and clued us in of some of the plans he has to improve relations between government and opposition sides. He said that the current seating arrangement of the members of parliament lends to creating an adversarial atmosphere because the members sit diametrically opposite each other. The Speaker was of the view that an alternative arrangement, in the shape of a horseshoe, would lead to more constructive dialogue in the Assembly. He pointed out that a few countries have adopted this and have seen positive results.
As I listened to the Speaker, I looked around the room and couldn’t help but wonder what will become of Guyana if the current infighting and bickering amongst our political leaders do not come to an end soon.
We have seen many cases recently where both sides of the House have failed to compromise on critical legislation and cases where bills passed were not assented to by the President. Mr Trotman cited the examples of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism bills and one of the Local Government Bills to illustrate this point.
While the Speaker spoke about many issues, one of the points that startled me was a response to a question I posed to him concerning whether parliamentarians are combative towards each other after the debates in the House had ended. In response, the Speaker noted that even though the public perception is that parliamentarians don’t get along, the reality was rather different and noted that some or most of them enjoy very good personal relationships outside of parliament or when commenting to the press.
I then suggested to Mr Trotman that perhaps his public relations team should devise a strategy to communicate this fraternizing and camaraderie to the public, since I believe the perceived animosity feeds into the narrative that causes animosity and division among our citizens.
Could it be the case of the old and tested ‘divide and rule’ method being used by our political leaders? If it is, then while this may work in favour of the politicians and ensures their constituents’ loyalty for the next elections, it damages relationships and destroys the country.
Maybe I am naïve, but I hope that our members of parliament can work together for the good of the nation and not for some of the population and to the detriment of others.
Yours faithfully,
Michael A Leonard
Blue CAPS