President Granger on heated Parliamentary exchanges…I wouldn’t call it mud-slinging; it’s debate

Apr 27, 2016 News

---

By Kiana Wilburg
Debates within the National Assembly are hardly ever respectful.

Insults and lack of political finesse have been marked characteristics of the engagements between Parliamentarians.
Under his rule, President David Granger vowed that disrespect would not be tolerated in the Parliament. Regardless of how dirty the game of politics is considered to be, he stressed that a clean fight is what he wants his parliamentarians to engage in. He had said that “decorum, a sense of pride, dignity and integrity must be returned.”
Granger had even stated that the need for ethical behaviour among the Members of Parliament (MPs) is absolutely necessary, as respect for the National Assembly should be displayed at all times.
But it has been almost one year into the coalition administration’s period in office and the status quo remains unchanged.
In fact, Parliamentarians on both sides of the House contended on various occasions that in the Eleventh Parliament, democracy continues to be eroded and the disrespect meted out has worsened.
On a recently televised programme, The Public Interest, Granger was asked if he is disappointed by the “mud-slinging” that still continues despite his high hopes last year for improvement.
The Head of State asserted, “I wouldn’t call it mud-slinging. That is another invention. What is happening is debate. Debate has always been robust and if you look back at what has been happening in the Parliament for the last 50 years, you would see that the two sides, sometimes more, sometimes less adversarial, have been engaged

in combat…”
“There was a time when members of the present Opposition party (PPP) actually threw a glass at the Speaker, people threw down the law books …you haven’t seen anything yet. So what you are seeing now is quite mild compared with some of the scenes in the 1970s…”
He continued, “But there is always room for improvement. Sometimes school children come to visit the National Assembly and we would like them to be exposed to a civil debate, but there will always be robust engagements between the two sides. And we try to keep it in line. From time to time, I would speak to the Leader of the House (Moses Nagamootoo) or the Chief Whip (Amna Ally) and similarly, I hope that the whip on the Opposition (Gail Teixeira) would observe the same conventions of cordiality.”
Accompanied by their principal, Miss Carlyn Canterbury, and English teacher Miss Arita Griffith in February last, a group of 25 students from the President’s College took to the National Assembly to absorb all they could about the techniques of debating.
They saw it as an ideal opportunity to see the nation’s leaders whom they held in high esteem as “seasoned and civilized” debaters, demonstrate the ins and outs of the civilized exchange of ideas.
But they left disappointed, since what they had witnessed in the hallowed halls of the National Assembly were things they would never even attempt to emulate in their upcoming debating competition.
Many of the students were dumbfounded at the level of division and insulting exchanges which took

place in the National Assembly. They walked away disappointed at the attitude of the nation’s leaders.
Furthermore, while the President considers the proceedings of the Parliament to date to be “mild” in comparison to what took place some years ago, it has been a cause for great worry by those within the Chambers who continue to complain about parliamentary democracy being under threat.
In fact, it was in January that the members of the Government’s side have often found themselves facing the very accusations of unparliamentarily behaviour which it once leveled against the PPP regime.
Opposition Leader Bharrat Jagdeo expressed in January 2016 that the Government is in a habit of suspending the Standing Orders of the House to rush through critical bills. He had also accused the Government of failing to properly consult with the Opposition on a number of matters and said that it undermined the role of the Opposition in ensuring that Government is held accountable to the people.
Jagdeo even led another walkout after he had made his presentation during the budget 2016 debates.
The Opposition Leader, who spoke ahead of Nagamootoo during the budget 2016 debates, had said that he and his members would not stick around to hear the end of the debate as long as the Prime Minister was the penultimate speaker.
House Speaker, Dr. Barton Scotland had attempted to ask the members to reconsider their decision. He even asked the Opposition Leader to explain to the nation why he would want to make such a decision. The Opposition said that the reason was already given and still insisted on walking out.
Before rebutting the arguments made by various members of the opposition, Nagamootoo complained that Jagdeo’s actions showed total disregard for House Speaker, Dr. Barton Scotland, and by extension for the National Assembly.
The First Vice President said, “I did not expect that this House would have been treated with such disrespect from a recalcitrant Opposition. I cannot believe that the Opposition believes that it can show disregard for the chair presiding over a democratic Assembly in which there are certain procedures.”

---

---