Dear Editor,
There have been some rather ‘personal’, rude and crude comments on my letter in the 4th August edition of Stabroek News `Why advertise parliamentary sittings on TV when email, etc, is available’
which are not deserving of my reaction; however, I wish to make a few points that obviously escaped the commentators and which might be of further interest to the general readership and public at large:
- The TV advertisements were directed to MP’s principally and especially those living in outlying areas; they did not contain any invitation, directly nor implicitly, to the general public.
- My observations were limited to the anachronism of using the costly TV to inform/invite MP’s (and MP’s only) in the current age of instant, cost-free internet communication.
- The pros and cons of an ‘open invitation’ to the general public to sittings of the Parliament are in and of themselves debatable: as a gesture to the ‘openness’ or transparency ascribed to a ‘democratic’ process there can be no quarrel; however, such laudable ascription must be tempered by the relevant logistical considerations such as available space in the public gallery plus an efficient system of screening which does not add to the perceptions of unfairness and favouritism ever so rife in our unfortunate country! It is not difficult to see how such ‘open’ invitations might work well with residents of Georgetown and its environs who might not mind being turned away because of lack of space in the public gallery etc when they attempt to enter the Parliament ‘on spec’; however one shudders to think of the plight and reactions of busloads of citizens from Essequibo or the Corentyne or Linden being refused entry in similar instances.
- As a general rule, the installation or change of systems must be context-sensitive. In this regard it might be wise to also consider the potential fall-out from a ready-made gallery for politicians prone to ‘play to the gallery’; should we encourage additional ’politicking’ (as opposed to true ‘statesmanship’) in Parliament and further distraction from the ‘substantive business’ of the parliament of the day? I am not sure if our Parliament provides for “Question Period” as is the case in the British Parliament for example, but this might be worth considering as opportune for special invitation and ‘democratic’ involvement.
- Perhaps a better way to achieve some citizen ‘involvement’ is to use TV, Radio and available electronic devices to broadcast all or selected parts of Parliamentary proceedings for public information and discussion.
Yours faithfully,
Nowrang Persaud
