While President Irfaan Ali was in full flow in Parliament on Thursday, the opposition was demonstrating outside. In a release they said they had decided not to attend the sitting in order to emphasise that the nation was gripped by a series of crises. The first three which they listed related to the functioning of the political system, namely, parliamentary democracy, local government affairs and political relations. The others they mentioned were a mix of governance and policy matters such as corruption and the high cost of living.
Political courtesy should have required their presence, more especially considering that it is rare for the President to appear in Parliament. It is true that a few years ago Mr Bharrat Jagdeo led his members in a disgraceful display when then President David Granger was addressing the National Assembly, but the aim now should be to invest our legislature with more dignity than was exhibited on that occasion.
If there is an argument for the opposition absenting itself it would lie in the criticisms which it made about the functioning of Parliament, not those relating to the quality of government. There was hardly any point in staying out of the Chamber to inveigh against matters in connection with the cost of living, say, when the President was inside announcing measures to address that very question. It would have made more sense for the opposition to take their seats, listen to what the head of state had to say and then give their opinions on his remedies, rather than rail against a situation he was purporting to address.
This is more particularly the case since they themselves had once put forward a proposal to give $200,000 every quarter to those over the age of eighteen, and now the President intends to make a similar one-off disbursement to every household in the country.
The empty seats on the opposition side did not go unremarked by the President, who said: “I encourage the seats that portray emptiness today to join us in creating a Guyana where prosperity means something for every household.” The problem with that is that there have to be meaningful mechanisms in place to give the opposition some role in creating a prosperous Guyana, and those which do exist the government has been bypassing.
The President’s more than three-hour oration was focused on new initiatives to be paid for out of the nation’s oil wealth, but as yesterday’s editorial observed, when he speaks, “it isn’t that he has the sole say or it’s the PPP that is doing the country and its people a favour. It is Parliament that ultimately provides the imprimatur for expenditure of the type that the President spoke of …” The caveat was added, however, that “historically the executive and legislature could hardly be distinguished from each other on spending matters with the exception of the period of the Ramotar administration.”
The truth of the matter is that his words notwithstanding the President doesn’t want the opposition to join the government in creating prosperity; this was a pre-election campaign speech containing some dramatic financial inducements, but it didn’t omit the usual castigation of the former APNU+AFC government. The one commitment which was not given was to see that Parliament functioned in the way the year 2000 reforms intended, so the opposition had some role in deciding national expenditure, among other things.
In its release the PNCR made reference to its attempts to utilise Parliament to the fullest and within that context raise critical issues which had bearing on ordinary people, but that its motions had been disallowed by a partisan Speaker. It is true that Mr Manzoor Nadir is the least impressive Speaker since 1992, although not every decision he makes against the opposition is without merit.
Perhaps the most notorious incident occurred on December 29th 2021, when the opposition caused chaos in the Chamber and Ms Annette Ferguson tried to seize the mace. The disruptive members were justifiably sanctioned by the Speaker on that occasion, although that is to ignore what had triggered the problem in the first instance, namely, the steamrolling through the House of the Natural Resource Fund Bill which should have gone to Select Committee for review. It was one of several instances where the government avoided sending critical Bills to committee, thereby treating Parliament as little better than a rubber stamp.
While the example mentioned reflected the fact that the opposition cause was just, its behaviour was intolerable. Its members too are required to show respect for the institution, which even when they were in office they did not always do. But the Natural Resource Fund Bill was not the only example of the government’s propensity to pile-drive its way through opposition objections in Parliament, no matter how rational or important the issue. There was also the treatment of the opposition motion on the Gas-to-Shore Project that recommended comprehensive studies by independent consultants and a parliamentary review.
If input from the opposition on something as crucial as the latter was not entertained by the government, it is highly unlikely President Ali will be of a mind to enter into any discussions about his proposals for spending the oil money, let alone amend them. (Where the $200,000 is concerned, the opposition will find itself in an awkward situation, given its own history on the subject.) And as things stand the PPP/C will see that Parliament gives its endorsement to the President’s announcements without any ado.
The PNCR release rightly drew attention to the fact that many of the National Assembly’s Standing Committees have not been meeting, one of which is the National Security Committee. There are others too, said the statement, like the Foreign Services and Economic Services Committees which have outstanding or pending matters. The case of the Public Accounts Committee which is part of the process of ensuring accountability in the public finances has been given considerable exposure already. The government changed the rules for what constitutes a quorum and for a long time thereafter its members sometimes did not turn up to meetings, causing a significant number of them to be aborted.
A different dimension, but still connected with how the political system in its larger aspect functions is the matter of the justice sector. In his speech the President alluded to the appointment of 12 magistrates and 10 high court judges, which he said aimed to ensure a functional and fair judicial system. What he did not mention, but the PNCR release did, was the fact that contrary to the Constitution he had not appointed a substantive Chief Justice or Chancellor. That, of course, requires the input of the Leader of the Opposition which he is avoiding, even although Mr Norton has indicated his preparedness to confirm the acting appointees in their posts.
As has been noted several times in the past, the ruling party justifies its exclusionary approach to the opposition, not just in Parliament, but also at the local government level, to the fact that it has lost all moral authority as a consequence of its attempt to rig the 2020 election. While the opposition will at some point have to come to terms with that attempted fraud and give its acknowledgement of it, that does not mean the government is justified in treating the party as if it shouldn’t be there. Among other things the opposition still has obligations to its constituents, and our democracy is a representative one.
The government is bound by the Constitution, and is bound by those provisions which require it to consult with the opposition, send Bills to committee on which the opposition sits, and entertain its parliamentary motions on matters of key public concern. The President cannot affect an attitude in Parliament or anywhere else that the opposition is invited to join in creating prosperity, when the official avenues for doing so have been closed off.
