The Speaker in Guyana is not non-partisan because s/he does not have to renounce political affiliation

Feb 26, 2013 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
Never too far from the mind after reading Vishnu Bisram’s letters and questionable ‘polls’ is the thought that this gentleman’s greatest strength is that he has no shame.
Reference is made to his letter “Majority should have its way with respect for minority” (KN 24/2/2012) in response to mine “The Speaker’s action puts into question his leadership and temperament (KN 17/2/2013).
Contrary to his understanding, at no time have I, expressly or implicitly, said the Speaker should “execute the agenda of the majority [and ignore] the respect for the minority.”
My positions on minority and majority are: 1) “The Speaker in Parliament or Congress is elected by a majority vote, and is expected to lead in realising an agenda set by the majority with the input of the minority, with the intent that the society shall benefit from the best ideas, since no individual or specific group has all the answers to resolving the problems and influencing the desires of the people;” and 2) “And it is expected that as Speaker he will lead in ensuring that the principal agenda of the groups that elected him be advanced in the House, even as he takes on board suggestions and modifications from the opposite side of the House.”
Given that tyranny can happen with the majority and minority, the spirit, intent and letter of Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution, guarantees a “political system…to establish an inclusionary democracy by providing increasing opportunities for the participation of citizens, and their organisations in the management and decision-making processes of the State, with particular emphasis on those areas of decision-making that directly affect their well-being.”
Should this article be upheld, it would work at reducing such fear/action and ultimately the people would be better served. For years Bisram has been the notorious cheerleader of the PPP’s wrongs and abuses of power, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, he rightly wants the universal application of Article 13.
But even as he seeks it in one instance, he demeans it in the other with his efforts at delegitimising the parliamentary majority by calling them “a dictatorship of one.”
And with regard to his position on the no-confidence motion passed on Clement Rohee executing duties as Minister of Home Affairs, it lacks merit.
Arguing the “violat[ion] of norms, rules, regulations and principled politics” and a mangled understanding of the Chief Justice’s rulings do not make the no-confidence motion null and void.
A decision of this nature, having been taken, can only be withdrawn by those making it or the court. Further, using India as “perhaps the strongest example as a model for liberal democratic parliamentary governance…”only serves to expose his dishonest intent. The issue of Rohee speaking (fundamental right) as an elected representative and Member of the National Assembly is different from him executing duties as Minister of Home Affairs.
The right to speak as MP is fundamental and secured having being elected to represent a constituent. But with regard to a no-confidence motion passed on his stewardship as Home Affairs Minister, to disregard the decision of the House and the voice of the majority, through their elected representatives, is to show contempt for the institution and the people.
In fact, were one to refer to India’s scenario, a no-confidence vote passed on a subject minister signals to the Head of State (President) the said person no longer enjoys the people’s confidence (via the elected parliament) to function in such capacity.
It is expected this decision would be acted upon, because among other things, it upholds the universal principles of honour in name and service to the public, and when such are brought into question, persons remove themselves to facilitate the clearing of their names, or in respect for the desire of the people.
Additionally, this mindset connotes that public officials see themselves in service to the people and subject to the desire of the people, unlike here where this cabal think they are above the people and are doing them a grand favour. And where Bisram sees the no-confidence decision in Guyana as a “dictatorship of one,” such is consistent with the “majority” principle equally upheld in the India parliament.
Thus Bisram’s mention of teaching Government in New York and his lack of understanding of how government works brings home the urgency of Barack Obama’s passion to the fix the U.S. broken education system.
In any democracy, while a constitution/law authorises a president to make appointments, these appointments are expected to be made taking into consideration the desires of the people.
For instance, the president is not expected to appoint the likes of Roger Khan to head the security forces. And turning a blind eye to the will of the people and their representatives are factors that contribute to divisive behaviours in society and ferment the Arab Springs.
Constitutions and laws are not made for a few people in government to do as they please; they are meant for all to play by the same rules and held to the same standards.
In independent societies, governments are established to serve the people and laws are built to ensure such service through vigilance/policing by the people.
In a colonial society, the government dictates to the people, and is unmindful of the people’s views because it sees the people as subject to its dictates. This society must determine what environment we live in or want to live in and act in accordance.
Many seem to forget the Ronald Gajraj issue. For while the executive may have felt Gajraj was not guilty, in the court of public opinion he was, and Jagdeo acceded to the people’s request by removing him from office.
In a case of similar nature Jagdeo is doing better than Ramotar, for while Jagdeo has responded to the people’s cry, Ramotar thus far has turned a blind eye and his back on the matter.
The Rohee issue falls within the ambit of fundamental principles of governance and to take the position that this matter is an irritant would be aiding and abetting the lawlessness perpetuated by this government.
And while this issue may not have personal impact/interest for some, its determination impacts on good governance that will ultimately have personal impact.
To want to ‘forget the issue of Rohee fiasco in parliament and move on’ opens the door for some other group/individual to argue that persons must forget the environmental crises in Georgetown, abuses at NICIL and Marriott Hotel, non-appointment of an Ombudsman, etc., and move on, yet all are important, can be handled concurrently, since collectively they impact on governance and the people’s welfare.
And with regard to the Speaker, Article 56 (2) of the Constitution expressly states, “The Speaker may be elected either from among the members of the Assembly who are not Ministers or Parliamentary Secretaries or from among persons who are nor members of the Assembly but are qualified for election as members.”
Unlike the British parliament where the Speaker remains strictly non-partisan and renounces all political affiliation when taking office, no such requirement is made of Guyana’s Speaker and this falls more in line with that of U.S, Caribbean and other countries that while in principle have adopted the Westminster system of governance, they have localised it to suit their indigenous need.
Consequently, the Speaker in Guyana is not non-partisan because s/he does not have to renounce political affiliation; s/he is openly elected by political group(s) through yeas/nays votes and therefore has a responsibility to further the agenda of those who have put their confidence in her/him.
Lincoln Lewis

---

---