At least the government is still listening to criticism, and that is a major point in its favour.
On Thursday it had passed a motion in Parliament to restrict the time allocated for debate on the Budget Estimates from a maximum of seven days to three days. In the normal course of events parliamentary hours run from 2pm to 6pm, but for the purposes of the estimates, it was decided that these should be extended to 11pm. According to Prime Minister Moses Nagamootoo, the time for consideration of the estimates, therefore, had not been reduced. “In that period,” he said, “we will answer all of their questions; that is what is important … they can question us on every agency.”
And what was the reason for the reduction in the number of days? “We are trying to get things done for the Guyanese people,” the Prime Minister had told Stabroek News, but they [the opposition] want to lock us into a time-wasting session when we can economise on time. We want to get a reasonable time within which the Budget Estimates could be considered.”
The first thing to observe about this is that democracy by its very nature is not an expeditious system of government ‒ and yes, it sometimes involves time-wasting. But to make it efficient would often mean the docking of some of the critical elements which define it, more especially in the setting of the National Assembly. As it is Parliament is not a military exercise; there are all manner of delays, dilatoriness and unproductive exchanges. But it cannot be otherwise if the essential democratic character of the institution is to be maintained. In the end, efficiency of process cannot take precedence over the careful consideration of how the people’s money is to be spent.
The second thing is that the government after the motion had been passed, was a little less than candid about the same amount of time being available for debate in three days – albeit with the extended hours – as in seven. It has not infrequently been the case that debates in the chamber have gone beyond the parliamentary bedtime, so to speak, the consideration of the estimates being no exception. If the time-frame in terms of hours had to be extended in the past, what made the government think that this might not have to be done again, more especially as everything had to be compressed into three days this time, and because, as various commentators and the opposition pointed out, there was more to review, among other objections.
The opposition also accused the government of attempting to avoid scrutiny of an enlarged budget with a greater number of ministries to examine, something which the latter was at pains to deny.
For the sake of argument, if the debate did go over time, because the pace had not been as brisk as had been anticipated, were the members going to be expected to sit well into the small hours, when everyone was tired, tempers started to fray, and concentration was at its lowest? Or did the Speaker have it in mind to cut the length of everyone’s contribution to fit the time allotted? In any case, what was so important about saving four days – which would have been the maximum time given and might not have been used? Where did they get the idea from that the Guyanese people were in such a desperate hurry to have things done that they could not wait four days? After all, according to the government’s very own propaganda, they have been waiting 23 years.
Opposition Chief Whip Gail Teixeira had another point to make. This was that there had been no discussion between the two sides prior to the motion being moved, contrary to the usual courtesy which is extended. Considering that the coalition before coming into office, and even after that, had talked of inclusive government and preparedness to work with the PPP/C, this was not an encouraging sign. Where else, if not within the framework of Parliament, was the government going to seek ways to work with the opposition?
By the following day it was clear that the government was prepared to backtrack in a kind of roundabout way. Government Chief Whip Amna Ally said that it had been decided to extend the sittings on each day, so that the Committee of Supply would convene at 9.30 in the morning, instead of 2 in the afternoon. While that answers satisfactorily the technical matter of the hours available, it is perhaps not the best of wisdom to have members applying their minds to matters like the budget in such long stretches; adding a day or two rather than lengthening the sittings in a day, would seem to be the preferred approach.
Minister of Governance Raphael Trotman was reported yesterday as appealing to precedent in defence of the government’s initial motion. He said that for twenty years, the estimates had always been considered over a period of three days, with the exception of 2011 and 2014. In the latter year, he said, Carl Greenidge seconded by Khemraj Ramjattan had to move a motion to have the time extended beyond the three days. If last year APNU and the AFC used their majority to extend the time-frame when they were in opposition, it hardly seemed even-handed to then deny this concession to the current opposition. This is especially so in circumstances where this budget is larger and more complicated than its predecessors, and in the case of one phase, as Mr Christopher Ram has pointed out, falls under two administrations.
There was too the issue of the time allotted for Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo to speak, that was set at 45 minutes. After complaints that the government was trying to muzzle him, the time limit was extended to an hour. However, as things turned out, wisdom prevailed, and Mr Jagdeo was allowed to speak for 90 minutes. What was not settled was the order of speaking, when he was moved from what he said was the “traditional” penultimate spot for the opposition leader. Why that was done was not explained, but on the face of it, it seems unnecessary.
It is often the small things which cause the greatest rancour, and in the interest of trying to create a parliamentary environment where perhaps more meaningful exchanges can take place, the government should proceed with caution, and take the road of consultation where appropriate. As said above, the one good thing which has come out of all of this is that the coalition has shown a willingness to compromise at some level; let us hope that it doesn’t lose the art. Beyond that, it should always keep in mind the oft quoted adage that perception is everything in politics.
