Parliament is at the centre of our democracy, or at least, that is the theory. But in our environment it is not treated with the degree of respect that this role might suggest. Part of the problem arises because the ruling party treats it as something of an inconvenience, as a result of which it does not meet as frequently as it should, its committee system is not functioning as it should, and the government avoids sending controversial Bills to be reviewed in committee as it should.
That, however, is not the whole story. Our two main parties are ethnically based, and their primary responses are to their own constituencies rather than to the nation at large. The situation is exacerbated by the fact that it is the Represen-tatives of the List on either side of the parliamentary aisle who choose the MPs to occupy the seats won in a general election; it is not the electorate which votes for these representatives specifically, although their names will be extracted from a list which the public did vote for.
What this means in practice for members sitting in the House is that loyalty to the leader, who is usually the Representative of the List, is at a premium, since anyone who diverges from the official view of the leadership and by extension the party is in danger of being removed and replaced by someone else from the list. As such, there is no direct sense of accountability to any particular set of constituency voters, and the quality of anyone who fills a House seat is at the whim of the leader. The credentials of some of those who currently sit in the National Assembly can only be wondered at; their contributions do not redound to the credit of their party, let alone the nation at large.
Nevertheless, since a party will see itself as representing its own constituents in general, the presentations it makes will have a tendency to be of a populist nature, and will not be based on rational argument. This situation has got worse in more recent times, with the Parliament too being seen as a forum for populist theatrics, not serious debate. It is these, which it is felt, would most appeal to whichever constituency and give any exponent of crude rhetoric and bad behaviour a good approval rating among the mass of supporters. It is, in other words, the lowest common denominator principle in action.
The worst behaviour is usually demonstrated by the party in opposition, for obvious reasons, since it has little incentive under our current system to work hard on a shadow portfolio and engage in serious exchanges. Opposition parties are by no means the only offenders, however, as the appalling events which occurred in the debate on the 2021 Budget made clear. But Budgets, it seems, are turning out to be something of a challenge in terms of decorous behaviour, as the most recent one on Monday made obvious.
As a statement of what the state of the economy is and what measures the government is introducing, barring an emergency address the Budget is the most significant annual presentation any administration will make during its period in office, and the one which has the most impact on the financial circumstances of every Guyanese. Everyone, therefore, wants to know how measures announced in the Budget will affect them.
The reading of the Budget is not a time, therefore, for interruptions, heckling and jibes; it is simply a time for the conveying of information. The House will shortly sit as the Committee of Supply to discuss the Budget, and that is the period allotted for debate, although in the last few years it has also been seen by the opposition as a time for interruption and heckling. But there can be no justification for the constant interventions in the announcement of the Budget proper. It is true that the speech is always lengthy and tedious, but that is no excuse for disturbances; MPs should be able to rise above such childishness.
The disruptor-in-chief in this Parliament is invariably Mr Sherod Duncan, and it seems that four days ago he did not have it in mind to act in a way which would make any dent in his reputation for crass behaviour. However, it must be conceded that on this occasion he had plenty of support from the Leader of the Opposition himself and others.
The worst of it was that Finance Minister Ashni Singh decided to respond to them in like fashion. It is a pity he did not just ignore the interrupters, rather than descending to their level. On an occasion like this he is entitled to read out the Budget measures without being assailed by such nonsense; the nation wants to hear what he has to say on the economy, not the ad hominem insults of Messrs Norton and Duncan and others, and not his ad hominem insults in response either. The opposition will have its turn to be heard in the Committee of Supply next week.
Minister Singh’s reaction comes in a context of poor parliamentary behaviour on the part of his own party as well, particularly during the period when the coalition was in government. It is not easy to forget how Mr Bharrat Jagdeo organised his members to drown out then President David Granger’s address to Parliament and how they carried placards into the House. As things stand now we do not have a very self-assured Speaker in the House. The government probably likes it that way, but someone who was firmer and more knowledgeable might be able to exert a bit more control over a House which appears to be sliding in a downwards direction.
Theoretically, leaders such as Messrs Jagdeo and Norton could exercise far more control over their members – or Mr Khemraj Ramjattan in the case of Mr Duncan – but since they both have participated at one time or another in inappropriate Parliamentary behaviour themselves, that is perhaps wishful thinking at this stage. Apart from that, there are certain constitutional reforms which might help, particularly as these relate to the List system and how to make our MPs more professional, with access to research on various aspects of Guyanese administration, etc. Our parliamentarians are part-timers, something which does not encourage them to devote time and effort to the subjects they should have some in-depth knowledge about. And nowadays government is a complex business requiring considerable competence to master.
At the bottom of it all is the political polarisation in the society, where there is no appetite to find common ground, except fortunately, on the Venezuelan issue. For the rest there is no recognition that the other side might have some accomplishments to its credit, or that one’s own side too is guilty of mistakes or wrongdoing. That is a more profound problem however, which is unlikely to be addressed in the immediate future. For all of that it is to be hoped that if there are enough complaints about them, our defamatory politicians will begin to understand that the institution which underpins our democracy is our Parliament, and for that to work it has to be respected as a place of dialogue, not abuse.
