Majority should have its way with respect for minority

Feb 24, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
I support Mr. Lincoln Lewis’s position in letter in KN (Feb 17) stating the majority should have its way on their agenda passing bills but the minority should not be disrespected.
But I disagrre with Lewis chastising the Speaker for failing to execute the agenda of the majority opposition to bar Minister Clement Rohee from speaking. I agree with Lewis that the Speaker has the constitutional right to execute the agenda of the majority and indeed he facilitates the opposition in their goals.
But that principle applies only with regards to adoption of real meaningful bills pertaining to policies and programs, not to functioning rules of parliament.
A Speaker has to be fair and impartial in applying rules.  He or she cannot and should not be partisan and break conventions and precdents. The majority must have their way but there is a principle in democratic governance called “respect for the minority”.
All democratic establishments are guided by it – allow the minority to express their views no matter how repugnant the majoirty finds it unless it does not violate the rules or needlessly attack people.
The Speaker cannot simply give a blanket ruling accepting all of the opposition’s motions including ones to ban people from speaking. It must be based on precedence, rules and laws and a chance for the opposition to be heard – not just majority rule.
There must be fair play and a balance of rules and speaking time within the House and respect for all views.  One cannot just use one’s majority to ramrod everything through parliament.
If that were the case, one can pass just about any bill including a bill to prevent anyone from speaking – and how foolish would that sound? Today it could be Rohee; tomorrow, Ashni Singh, next day Gopaul, and so on.  That is not how parliament is run.
I teach American Government in New York and one of the functioning principles of American government is “majority rule” but it is balanced with “respect for the minority” – a necessary element of democracy and which has tremendous implications for good governance and furthering democracy especially for countries in transition from a dictatorship as ours.
The minority must be allowed to speak and efforts made to incorporate or respect its views if they are “good” – at the discretion of the majority.
The opposition passed a motion using its dictatorship of one vote to of no confidence against Minister Rohee following the Linden upheaval.  The Executive says the motion is unenforceable. The majority then decided the Minister will not speak in parliament.
The two are separate issues.  I believe the parliament has the power to pass a motion of no confidence against any Minster including the Chief Executive and it is a principle that guides governance everywhere. But the principle was misapplied in the Linden affair pertaining to Rohee.
Rohee made terrible blunders as a Minister and should have been punished long before the Linden violence. But the opposition did not see it fit to make a case against him prior to Linden.  It was only when the Linden violence happened that it opted to burn Rohee at the stake.
But no case was made out implicating Rohee for the Linden violence. In addition, the Opposition demanded and the government agreed to hold an inquiry.
The opposition should have waited for the inquiry to be completed before proceeding to sanction the Minister.
In the course of the hearing, the public was informed that Rohee did not issue any order to police to use violence against violent protesters and furthermore opposition members told the inquiry they nudged the crowd to break the law.  So the parliamentary majority should have held its hand till the inquiry gives its report.
If Rohee were found to be responsible, I am sure he would have tendered his resignation in conformation with parliamentary practice or the Chief executive would have moved against him.
But the opposition jumped the gun using its majority of one vote to punish a member for something he did not do – revenge politics.  What took place in Guyana’s parliament relating to Rohee is a violation of norms and as the Chief Justice also correctly ruled a violation of a M.P’s right to speak in parliament.
All over the globe where democracy exists, the Speaker cannot take away a member’s right to be heard in parliament. Also, the Speakers serves the majority and yes the majority should get its way but not at the expense of violating norms, rules, regulation and principled politics. In India, for example, perhaps the strongest example as a model for liberal democratic parliamentary governance, the Speaker indeed serves the interests of the majority because the Speaker is chosen by the majority as is the case in Guyana.
In India and in most countries, however, the convention is Speaker is chosen by the government (or majority) and the deputy Speaker by the opposition (minority). In Guyana, the majority opposition violated that convention – the majority had its way in accordance with Lewis’s rule.
Also, in India and in other parliaments, the Speaker had never denied the minority the right to express its views.  In fact, the minority gets equal time as the majority to present its views on bills and even to present its own bill. In addition, the Indian Speaker had never denied anyone the right to speak, or had anyone sent to the Privileges Committee without a prima facie case made out against a member.
The same holds true of the U.S Congress or House of Commons in Ottawa or London or Canberra. In Guyana, a M.P was sent to a committee to be disciplined but not told what rule he violated.
In fact, he violated none. That is a gross violation of democratic norms.  That is what Lewis is advocating by his definition of majority rule even when the Chief Justice says the Speaker cannot deny a member his right to speak. Trotman was right in his ruling allowing Rohee to speak.
Deborah Backer is wrong in reversing Trotman’s ruling.  By disregarding the Chief Justice’s opinion, is Backer in contempt of court and is it a prima facie case for her to be sent to the privileges committee for investigation and sanction – a procedure that the opposition majority failed to carry out before denying Rohee his right to speak?
Vishnu Bisram

---

---