A major Parliamentary change for better or worse

Mar 17, 2012 Editorial

The Parliament is suddenly a scene of contentious issues, not because it has been a place where everything is greeted with unanimity, but because this time around there is no way the parties can seem to agree even after the speaker’s gavel is sounded.
Usually there are the debates that tend to be acrimonious because the various political parties hold divergent views. Sometimes the issues are not as serious as the politicians would wish them to appear but they have implications for sections of the society. There are times when amendments are offered and accepted so that everyone could leave the National Assembly with something to take to his or her supporters.
On two occasions there were conscience votes. These votes allow a person to vote according to his conscience as opposed to voting for the party of which he is a member. The first such vote in recent times was to determine whether abortions should be legalised.
There were numerous bottom house abortions and the few private doctors who performed abortions were allowed to do so without even keeping a record. When the Bill was tabled there were protests mainly from members of the religious community. The usual rhetoric was proffered. Proponents of the Bill contended that the woman was in control of her body and should be allowed to do as she pleases. The opponents spoke about the fetus being a life and held that abortion was murder.
In the end the Bill was modified to the extent that to this day public institutions funded by the taxpayers are not allowed to perform abortions. They may operate in the case of incomplete abortions.
The next time was when the nation had to decide whether it would allow for sexual preference. Again there were the protests outside the National Assembly. The Parliamentarians individually held strong views. Many pandered to the voter even if it meant voting against one’s conscience. In the end the National Assembly voted for sexual preference but President Bharrat Jagdeo never assented to it.
Throughout these things, the National Assembly never saw such sharp divisions as it is witnessing per day. There was a time when things became so heated that the then Opposition Leader, Dr. Cheddi Jagan hurled the Speaker’s mace to the floor. He was banned from speaking in the House. Nothing could have led to a serious division in the House.
But the members maintained a most cordial relationship. They would argue and hurl taunts in the House but they maintained their cordiality. Today, the acrimony has reached new depths or new heights, depending on how one is viewing the issue. And this level of acrimony has to do with the composition of the Parliamentary Committee of Selection.
Until now the committee was a 10-member body; the present Parliament opposition parties want to make it a nine-member body. There is one school of thought that if something is working then leave it alone. In the vernacular the saying goes, “If something ain’t broken then don’t fix it.”
One view is that the 10-member committee is working just fine and should continue to be left alone. But there is a new Parliamentary dispensation and one view is that the new Parliament wants a change.
However, the government, although it holds a Minority in the House, says that the old dispensation should prevail.
One organisation had cause to comment that what passes for the Parliament these days is not a reflection of people of civility. There seems to be too much bitterness. Never in the history of this country have parliamentarians moved to the courts to resolve a matter that is of Parliament’s making. There is no move for dialogue—approaches have been made and rejected or ignored.
Will the courts change the current situation? We cannot say. Suffice it to say that the government will accept whatever ruling the courts hand down. But the damage would have been done. Parliament would be changed irrevocably. And this may very well not be the last time that matters that should be resolved in the parliament will be referred to the courts for decision.

Latest News

A major Parliamentary change for better or worse

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Tennis Association applauds historic GYD $8 billion allocation to the...

Squash Association notes significance of...

Pepsi Hikers and GBTI GCC win Bounty/Antonio’s...

GYMMAF president lauds Transformative G$8 billion...

GOA says 2025 Sports Budget allocation...

Foreign Link Darts Club hosts successful...

Features/Columnists

‘Govt. must come clean on gas-to-energy project’

OAS Secretary General Election and renewed OAS Consensus

Sanctity, sanctity, sanctity – an era of infamy

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

A major Parliamentary change for better or worse

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | January, 24th, 2025

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]