Strong minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, weak minds discuss people…Be kind. For everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle…The unexamined life is not worth living.
Government worked best when ruled by individuals who had the greatest ability, knowledge and virtue, and possessed a complete understanding of themselves.
Socrates
Once every five years, we take to the polls to elect a government of our choice to administer the affairs of the State. At the same time, we elect our Members of Parliament (MPs) to sit in the highest forum of the land – the National Assembly – to engage in healthy debates on matters of national importance and to enact laws and other legislative measures for the good governance of the country. Both the government and the legislators have stewardship responsibilities as representatives of the people and are accountable to them for the performance of their duties, including how well they have been able serve, protect and defend the national interest. If their performance is below expectation, the elected representatives are likely to be replaced in the next round of elections on the assumption there is a strong, effective and viable alternative. This is the essence of democracy which needs to be practised in all its forms throughout the tenure of office of those elected.
The reality is, however, different for two main reasons. As the recent USAID-commissioned report on Guyana’s democracy, human rights and governance pointed out, our electoral system encourages legislators to be more accountable to party leaders rather than to the electorate. There is therefore no direct accountability to the citizens they are required to serve. The situation is compounded by the practice of the “winner takes all” approach that results in almost half of the population having little or no say, via their elected representatives, in managing the affairs of the State. This arrangement has not served the country well in the past and does not augur well for the future well-being of the country. It also does provide the much-needed incentive for our elected representatives to give of their best in the service of the national interest. Once the political leadership is happy with their performance, they continue to hold office.
Since the late 1950s, the two main political parties derive their support primarily from the two major ethnic groups in the country. Whenever elections are held, citizens cast their ballots overwhelmingly based on ethnic sentiments and not after due consideration of and reflection on issues of national importance, past performance, and proposed programmes as outlined in the political parties’ election manifestos. The results of this pattern of voting do not necessarily produce a government that is best suited to administer the affairs of the State. Rather, it results in what some commentators would describe as an “elected dictatorship” since the practice of democracy takes place only one day in every five years, while a major section of the electorate is excluded from decision-making and quite justifiably feel marginalized. This occurs regardless which of the two main political parties accedes to power.
The situation is compounded by the undesirable practice of MPs voting strictly along party lines on legislative matters and not on the basis of careful analysis of the issues under consideration as well as pertinent arguments for and against any proposed measure. The only exception in recent times was in relation to the 21 December 2018 vote of no confidence in the Government where a Government MP joined the Opposition members in voting in favour of the motion. For example, debates on the National Budget hardly serve any useful purpose since the outcome is a foregone conclusion, with the Budget being approved with any amendments.
Given the above, it is no wonder that some of our elected representatives in the Assembly continue to trade barbs at each other and behave in the most uncouth manner not befitting of the high office they hold. We highlight a few recent examples in the hope that those MPs who have indulged in such behavour in their own moment of quietude indulge in some form of self-reflection with a view to making the necessary adjustments in the way they represent the electorate.
In our article of 19 December 2015, captioned “Drama in the House”, we had referred the behaviour of some of our MPs when three legislative matters were to be considered, namely, amendments to the Municipal and Local District Councils and Local Authorities Act as it relates to local government elections; amendments to the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering of Financing of Terrorism (AML-CFT) Act; and legislation on anti-terrorism and terrorist-related activities.
In the first case, the Government wanted a suspension of the Standing Orders to allow for all stages of the related Bill to be dealt with one sitting. This was to enable the amendments to be passed before year-end with a view to having local government elections in early 2016. The Opposition, however, staged a walk-out of the Assembly because of what it perceived as the apparent haste to have the amendments approved. This is not to suggest that we are supportive of any arrangement that does not allow for enough time to reflect of any proposed legislative measure before its passage in the Assembly nor do we support walk-outs of the Assembly whenever there is a disagreement.
Although the law requires local government elections to be held every three years, 18 years had elapsed without such elections being held. One recalls the unleashing of the ‘feral blast’ in July 2014 on former U.S. Ambassador Brent Hardt at his residence when he spoke out against the failure to hold such elections. During this period, several local government agencies were managed by hand-picked loyalists, and there were credible allegations of financial mismanagement of the public funds allocated to these agencies. There were also several years of lack of financial reporting and audit, a situation that continues to date. It would indeed be revealing if the Auditor General were to publish a list of local government bodies, indicating their status in terms of financial reporting and audit. Suffice it to state that with local government elections successfully held on 18 March 2016, a new era for local democracy was ushered.
In relation to the amendments to the AML-CFT Act, the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF) had found significant deficiencies in the Act and had made several recommendations to bring it in line with international standards. There were, however, significant disagreements as to the extent of the amendments, with the Opposition insisting on the minimum that was required to address the concerns of the CFATF. On the other hand, the Government wanted to use the opportunity to comprehensively overhaul the legislation since money laundering and drug trafficking had been perceived to have become entrenched in the Guyanese society. Unfortunately, the Opposition again chose to walk-out of the Assembly, resulting in all the stages leading up to the amendments being dealt with at the same sitting.
As regards the Bill relating to anti-terrorism and terrorist-related activities, for a third time on the same day, the Opposition walked out of the Assembly, this time on the grounds that there were inadequate consultations with key stakeholders and that the Bill should have been referred to a Select Committee for detailed scrutiny. In the end, the Government abandoned its attempts to have all the stages in the passage of the Bill dealt with in one sitting.
In our article of 8 March 2021, under the caption “The recent unbecoming behaviour of some MPs reflects badly on the basis of their selection”, we had joined numerous individuals who had raised their voices in condemnation of undesirable behaviour by some of our elected officials in the Assembly during the debate on the Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for 2021. We had referred to former Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar dispensing with the services of 12 of her Ministers during her 4-year tenure in office for minor misdemeanors. Her words are worth repeating:
There must be no compromise on integrity, no allowance for arrogance, no room for violation of mutual respect; there will be no sacrifices of our values on the altar of expediency. Regardless of the consequences, I remain resolved to do the right thing because it is the right thing to do…No one is exempt from the measure of value based leadership…
I hold no brief for any man or woman save the greater public interest… I have insisted from the moment we took office that every one of us must display a sound character of public integrity, fairness, humility, compassion and human dignity.
My leadership isn’t formed in the mould of loud and angry politicians who feel that shouting and attacking everything is the best way to be heard.
In the said article, we also spoke about the need for MPs to display complete integrity of character, humility (as opposed to arrogance) and other attributes consistent with the principles and practices of servant leadership. This is a philosophy and a set of practices that enrich the lives of individuals, build better organizations and ultimately create a more just and caring world. Servant leadership focuses primarily on the growth and well-being of people and the communities to which they belong. It involves sharing of power, putting the needs of others first and helping people develop and perform to the best of their ability. A servant-leader helps others not only to rise to the highest level of their potential but also ordinary people to achieve the extraordinary feats.
One also recalls former President’s Granger’s address to the Assembly on 2 November 2017 when Opposition MPs sought to prevent him from delivering his presentation through incessant heckling and shouting. One of the media houses reported as follows:
However, the heckling soon turned into chanting … Amidst the chants and the government members’ intermittent thumping of their desks and shouts of support at some points, the president could not be heard. On a few occasions, he could be seen looking at Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland, who hit his gavel on a number of occasions to no effect… At times, the president paused and at other times he took a sip of water and he was even heard saying during one of the pauses, “I am tired,” but nonetheless he marched on with his speech.
We now turn to what transpired on 29 December 2021. The Assembly met to consider the Natural Resource Fund (NRF) Bill 2021. However, a chaotic scene erupted which saw the removal of the Speaker’s mace. Opposition MPs were vehemently opposed to the Bill being considered on the grounds that: they were not given enough time to study the contents of the Bill; given its importance, the Bill should have been referred to a Select Commission for detailed consideration; and the predecessor legislation of 2019 was being repealed and replaced with what they believe to be a lesser form of legislation that removes several safeguards against the abuse over the oil revenues accruing to the nation. The NRF Bill was eventually taken through all its stages without any debate. The following day, the President assented to the Bill while the Minister of Finance signed the commencement Order the next day to bring the Act into operation. The haste at which the NRF Bill became law remains a source of concern for many.
Finally, during the debate on the 2022 National Budget, some MPs continued to trade barbs at each other, with one MP making uncouth sexist remarks. When a member from the other side sought to rebuke him using also unparliamentary language, he was suspended for four sittings of the Assembly. However, action is yet to be taken against the member who made the original offending remarks. Where do we go from here?
