As the budget presentations and debates gather steam, the eyes of the public are once more focused inexorably on the antics and elucidations of those who seek to represent us in that most august of houses ‒ the National Assembly. We can expect the members of parliament to wax eloquent on the matters before them, whether for or against, in the process demonstrating a level of knowledge and a depth of understanding that makes us proud to have such quality representation defending our interests.
At least maybe in a perfect Guyana we would.
It was only a few weeks ago that PPP/C Member of Parliament Nigel Dharamlall utilizing his social media platform, launched a scathing criticism of the government’s policies and directed a highly provocative, disrespectful tirade squarely at President of Guyana David Granger.
Such was the invective used that no less a personage than Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo, himself known for skirting the limits of verbal propriety particularly while on the campaign trail, called Mr Dharamlall’s comments “reprehensible and unacceptable” noting that criticisms should never get personal.
The politics of disagreement can be practised without being disrespectful, the Opposition Leader said, while issuing his public reprimand, and he gave the assurance that MP Dharamlall was remorseful following discussions at the party level on the matter. That said, there was no comment from the Opposition Leader on the responsibility of the party to curb such conduct with disciplinary measures or the development of policies that speak to the demeanour of parliamentarians inside and outside Parliament.
Concerns about the propriety of public officials across the political landscape, whether sitting in Parliament or not, is a recurring issue and the case of MP Dharamlall simply serves to lower an already precipitously low bar of public expectation regarding their politicians.
As if this wasn’t enough, the spat between Mr Anil Nandlall and the Speaker, Dr Barton Scotland and the resulting walkout by the members on the opposition bench soon grabbed the headlines, relegating Mr Dharamlall’s ill-advised and inappropriate outburst on social media to yesterday’s news.
What boggles the mind in the case of Nandlall v Scotland is that the issue over which things escalated to the point of Nandlall’s ejection from the House and the opposition’s walk out, seemed rather basic in its genesis. It should have proceeded towards a simple resolution, which would not have necessitated the display of hubris and grandstanding by the combatants that followed. It seems like common sense to have allowed Mr Nandlall time to go and retrieve the newspaper to which he was referring.
That MPs should come to parliament prepared to substantiate their claims and accusations, goes without saying. Should the government bench provide the opposition bench with enough time to study and prepare for a matter before it comes up for discussion? This is also obviously a reasonable expectation. How then do the leaders in our society stoop to a contest of wills and egos over an exchange of ideas, information and knowledge?
Maybe the explanation can be found in the general decay that is sweeping through the leadership of countries all over the world. Social media have been awash with fistfights occurring in parliaments around the world, from Ukraine to Hong Kong to Israel. Most recently, the Canadian Prime Minister drew the ire of many when he seemed to elbow a female MP while physically injecting himself into a small group of MPs deliberately blocking the passage of another MP.
American president-elect Donald Trump has demonstrated that political correctness and respect for age old traditions and societal norms can be swept aside without any danger of losing overall public support. Perhaps it is this new bar, set temptingly low, that our MPs are judging themselves by. If this is so, then the public might be in for quite the entertainment, live streamed, should our MPs one day look to resolve differences in even more dramatic fashion. Sober heads can only hope for a renaissance of propriety and sophisticated behaviour that reverses this ongoing decline occurring in our Parliament.
Indeed, it is not that all is lost in Guyana. President Granger has stayed steadfastly above the fray in terms of intemperate behaviour and making offensive comments or retorts, and his speech can often be considered carefully crafted diplomatic language.
In the context of the political climate we find ourselves in, and considering the conduct of our officials in the National Assembly, it is becoming increasingly clear that we need more reform-minded politicians on both sides of the Assembly who are willing to press for parliamentarians to demonstrate high standards of conduct consistent with their role of defending and advancing the public interest. The young and impressionable minds in our society are not well served with an overdose of banal and commonplace exchanges in our highest House.
There has been a considerable amount of disrespect shown for the Speaker and individual members in the Assembly on both sides during this current Parliament, and this does not bode well for our democracy and the public trust. If indeed there is a perception of bias shown by the Speaker, then the members of the House must have a means of addressing this perception in a civilised manner based on the established rules of procedure and traditions of parliament.
The voting public in Guyana has already seen the strength of its votes in the narrow victories and losses in the last two elections, where a single seat separates the two parties in the House. This reality means that the voting public is in a rare position of strength to reward or punish the parties contesting the elections every five years in a manner that has not previously been known in our democratic era.
What remains to be seen is whether all the current politicians in Guyana, particularly those who are MPs, will continue to rule with disregard for their constituents, or whether they will demonstrate, particularly in Parliament, that they are prepared to take this country forward and actualise that evergreen election promise of a better life for all.
In 2020 it may become clearer exactly how much the people of Guyana are prepared to continue tolerating this excessive degree of parliamentary contretemps.
