New Gyrations

Men of straw

It is not funny any longer. It is clear that the APNU and the AFC are prepared to destroy institutions that were designed to give stability to the governance of our state. The Speaker of Parliament in the Westminster system that we were bequeathed is, above all, an individual that represents continuity and nonpartisanship in the conduct of our nation’s business.

In their obsession to seize the reins of state power, APNU- AFC are about to terminate both principles with their proposal to ‘rotate’ the Speakership between their nominees. First, the principle of continuity. It is remarkable that these gentlemen that carp about tradition non-stop have not even genuflected to the tradition that the Speaker seeking re-election is normally allowed to do so unopposed.

How can there be continuity when at the beginning of every sitting (or of some other timeframe that has nothing with the smooth functioning of Parliament and everything with control) a Speaker will resign and another ‘elected’? So what tradition are we creating? That every party in the Parliament seeks to install their own nominee at every sitting? What will this gamesmanship do to the second principle that defines the office of Speaker – that they must absolutely be above their party’s interest? The trampling of this principle by these men of overweening ambition will guarantee gridlock in the upcoming Parliament.

How can the House rely on the Speaker’s disinterest on matters that come before it when everyone knows that the APNU or the AFC have fought bitterly to install him or her in the position? Every member from either side of the House will assume that a Speaker’s ruling is biased.

The Speaker is supposed to be above controversy, but if the Speaker comes to us from the APNU- AFC combine through the ‘rotation’ gimmick then the position would not only reek of partisanship but be defined by it.

We refer to one description of the ideal: “All sides in the House rely on the Speaker’s disinterest and respect that he or she must stand aside from controversy. Even after retirement, a former Speaker will take no part in political issues. Assuming the office of Speaker will to a great extent mean shedding old loyalties and friendships within the House. The Speaker must keep apart from old party colleagues or any one group or interest and does not use, for instance, the Commons dining rooms or bars.” We hope that those that voted for these men of straw are taking notice.

Tradition

The actions of APNU- AFC take us back to the early days of Parliament when the Speaker was merely the representative of the King. The leaders of APNU- AFC obviously see themselves as ‘the King’, (or Queen as the case might be). They need to be reminded of the tradition established when Speaker Lenthall gave his celebrated response to King Charles I, when the latter came to arrest five Members of Parliament for treason.

“May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here, and I humbly beg Your Majesty’s pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to what Your Majesty is pleased to demand of me.” Does anyone in or out of Parliament believe that either Backer or Nagamootoo will give such an answer to their King that placed them in the chair? We would know that the event took place during the English Civil War after which Charles I was beheaded.

It is fervently hoped that such extreme measures are not required in Guyana for us to establish the tradition of the independence and non-partisanship of the Speaker.

Hold me, loose me

We take notice of the continued campaign of Trotman to position himself as desiring to be above the political fray. Too ‘adversarial’ he mumbles. Is he bucking for the Speakership?