Parliament is one of the key institutions of our system of governance. Nowadays, people seem to have forgotten the distinction and difference between an “institution” and an “organisation” and maybe because of that lapse of collective memory, there is not a greater public outcry in the steady undermining of the institution of Parliament by the Opposition.
Even an elementary definition of “institution” such as provided by Wikipedia advises:
“An institution is any structure or mechanism of social order governing the behaviour of a set of individuals within a given community… Institutions are identified with a social purpose, transcending individuals and intentions by mediating the rules that govern living behaviour.” Institutions, then are characterised by the rules or regime that govern the behaviour of the organisation (people) or the larger collective, as the case may be, towards fulfilling a “social purpose”.
The rules, then, are larger than the individuals that occupy the institution for the moment and if those individuals desecrate those rules, they are destroying the institution’s capacity to achieve its social purpose. The “social purpose” of Parliament was to create an effective forum for the representatives of the country to deliberate on the affairs of the country to as to further the collective “good”.
The rules of Parliament were designed so as to facilitate that deliberation. For instance, Members of Parliament (MP’s) cannot be sued for slander for words uttered during debates. This rule obviously allows the MP’s to “speak their minds” without fear or favour.
On the other hand, there are also rules to ensure that the remarks by speakers do not get too “personal”, since this would lead to loss of objectivity as recipients of barbs seek to defend their “honour”.
But what we are witnessing unfolding in Guyana’s Parliament traduces the rules of Parliament and insidiously undermines them. What are the undisputed facts? Education Minister Manickchand spontaneously made a retort alluding to a point made by an Opposition speaker.
This falls under the rubric of “heckling”, which covered a wide list of insults, some of which were covered by the authoritative Erskine May: “pharisee, swine, jackass, hooligan, blackguard, cad, ruffian and insulting dog”.
Since the Opposition member was speaking of “rapists”, Minister Manickchand’s repartee, which in the judgment of the Speaker unacceptably maligned a sitting member, was ruled out of order and an apology was demanded by him.
However, the following day, when it was clarified that in point of fact the minister was referring to the aggrieved Opposition member’s father, who was before the courts charged with statutory rape, the Speaker withdrew his gag order. And this is where we arrive at the Opposition stepping over the boundaries of civilised parliamentary behaviour and threatening Guyana’s descent into anarchy.
After the ruling by the Speaker, the minister attempted to deliver her comments on the budget but was prevented from doing so by the Opposition which precipitated a cacophony of noise by banging their desks. Rather than sanctioning the Opposition en bloc for denying the minister her fundamental guaranteed right to speech in Parliament, the Speaker adjourned the body for the weekend.
We believe this was an error on the Speaker’s part, because just as he imposed a sanction when he thought the minister had violated a convention, he should have done the same when the Opposition broke an even graver rule on Parliament’s “social purpose”.
Monday, the Opposition walked out of Parliament when the minister made her speech. This is their right but we wish to inform the Speaker that he is on the edge of a slippery slope. Soon he will have to decide whether he will allow the Opposition to go against the ruling of the courts, which forbade them from imposing cuts on the budget.
This will not just undermine the institution of Parliament but the entire edifice of government that has been empowered by the Constitution to steer our ship of state. The Speaker should thread carefully.