Curtailing heckling in Parliament is another ominous sign

Dear Editor,

Since the beginning of the 11th Parliament, Head of State, David Granger, made a statement about the need for a Code of Conduct for members of the National Assembly. His intuition seems to be to curtail and stop heckling in the Chambers.

After this was said, other Government officials also joined in supporting this call. Part of the media, too, seems to be in support of curbing heckling in the Chambers.

Last Monday, the main mouthpiece of the regime, the Kaieteur News, editorialized on this subject, supporting the regime’s view. This is a signal that the regime is building support to halt heckling.

On the surface, this seems much ado about nothing because in every democratic society, Parliament is known for heckling during the ‘cut and thrust’ of debates. This is not just confined to the Westminster system, but to democratic Parliaments throughout the world.

If per chance, the behavior is being overdone, the Speaker has the power and authority to bring order to the debate. We don’t need a Code of Conduct to deal with that, the Standing Orders are sufficient.

What should be noted is that Parliaments and National Assemblies that do not have heckling are all some form of dictatorship. Dissent is not allowed and the Parliament becomes a rubber stamp. Order and/or the other military type disciplines are imposed.

The point to note in our country is that we have a high amount of former military people in top positions in our Government, similar to Egypt. The demand for ‘order, no heckling’ comes from a military mentality that demands all to fall in line and obey orders. This is a dangerous and ominous sign.

Note, while the talk of establishing a Code of Conduct to stop heckling is being pushed, at the same time, areas where a Code of Conduct is needed is being ignored. And we see measures being put in place to make the National Assembly a rubber stamp.

The need for all MPs to declare their assets on entering Parliament, including overseas assets, if applicable, should be one of the rules. Periodic reporting on assets, once a year at the least would be a step in the right direction. This is a serious measure and can be described as an anti-corruption stance.

The concern should also be more about how the business of the Assembly is conducted and to inquire if it is filling the role envisaged for oversight, transparency and proper legislation.

Even though this Parliament is still relatively new, we have seen on several occasions the governing APNU/AFC’s intention to make it ineffective. The regular feature of suspending the Standing Orders and passing pieces of legislation without giving the Opposition time to prepare for a debate is very troubling. So, too, the many unanswered questions by ministers are all signs we should not miss.

These are not the only indications that the regime does not want to have debates.

During the last budget, the days for considering the estimates were drastically cut from seven to three days. Why is it that the regime does not want to be scrutinized even though it is so early in its life?

The changing of centuries-old Parliamentary traditions and practices is also serious.

Moreover, Opposition MPs were held on a tight leash as far as speaking time was concerned. Many were thrown off their speeches by being told by the Speaker that time was running out. This is reminiscent of the Sase Narine/Burnham days. On the other hand, the Speaker seems not to be keeping track of time when Government MPs were on the floor.

Yes, a lot is wrong with how Parliament is being run. However, the least of those problems is heckling. This was clearly noticeable.

The demand for military type discipline and order are features of totalitarian regimes worldwide. So, too, is the curtailing of debates.

This is another sign of a creeping dictatorship. In the closing of the debate, the Government side wanted to have four other speakers taking the floor after the Leader of the Opposition closed the debate for the Opposition side. Eventually, they put two others.

This has never happened before. It is to try to answer before without a chance to reply, a ‘banking’ as we would say. That is undemocratic and not in keeping with Parliamentary democracy.

Donald Ramotar

Former President

of Guyana