The PPPC is monkeying around with parliamentary democracy

Nov 10, 2013 APNU Column, Features / Columnists

---

The People’s Progressive Party Civic (PPPC) administration is monkeying around with parliamentary democracy.  That Party, since the start of the 10th Parliament in January 2012, has attempted to diminish the authority of the National Assembly. It has challenged the Assembly’s legitimate decisions in the High Court, ignored recommendations of experts, failed to assent to bills and attacked the Opposition through the state media.
The PPPC has been using every device at its disposal to hold back the ‘wave of change’ that surged since the general and regional elections of November 2011. That ‘wave’ submerged it into a minority in the National Assembly. The threat to parliamentary democracy is real.
Speaker of the National Assembly Raphael Trotman warned the Executive of the danger of a constitutional crisis. He said: “The continued resort to the High Court to question legitimate decisions of the National Assembly points to the grave and gathering danger of a constitutional crisis which has the potential to assume proportions the likes of which the nation has never seen and may be unable to handle.”
President Donald Ramotar took the extraordinary step to announce publicly, on 13th June 2012, that he had no intention of supporting any bill piloted by the Opposition. He said, “That is not the function of the opposition. They must respect what is their role…I am making it very clear that I will not assent to any bill that they carry unless it is with the full agreement of the executive and the full involvement of the executive.”
It must have been as a result of this thinking that the President’s assent to three local government bills – the Local Government Commission Bill, the Municipal and District Councils (Amendment) Bill and the Fiscal Transfers Bill – was not granted until three months after they were passed. The Local Government (Amendment) Bill and others still have not been assented to.
The Speaker had to warn the President that he could be in “gross dereliction of his constitutional duty” for not approving Bills that have been passed by the National Assembly. He said, “The Office of the President is cautioned not to provoke a constitutional crisis as there is no winner in such a scenario but, rather, to respect and recognise the reality, authority and legitimacy of the 10th Parliament.”
The PPPC has studiously ignored the most important recommendations of several reports and studies which pointed to the democratic way forward. The United Nations Development Programme earlier this year published a report – Assessment of Committees System of the National Assembly of Guyana – by Robin James and Dr David Ponet. The Report concluded that the National Assembly still lacks sufficient autonomy and resources and advised that it was “high time that Guyana’s political culture reflects this ideal of power-sharing.”
Several earlier studies made similar recommendations. The Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly by Sir Michael Davies; Advisory Papers on Needs Assessment of the Guyana National Assembly by James Pender and Guyana Fiduciary Oversight Project-Phase 1: Inception Report by Bradbury & Associates, all recommended greater autonomy for the National Assembly. The Report of the 35th conference of the Caribbean, Americas and Atlantic Region of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in Trinidad in July 2010 declared, “Autonomy is needed for Parliaments to function freely; Parliaments should therefore seek Administrative Autonomy; Institutional and Political Autonomy and Financial Autonomy; A weak feeble and subservient Parliament is a threat to democracy.”
Recommendations on autonomy of the National Assembly by these studies generally reflect the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government endorsed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja, Nigeria in 2003. Among those principles were that Parliament should be serviced by a professional staff – independent of the regular public service – and that an all-Party committee of members of parliament should review and administer parliament’s budget which should not be subject to amendment by the Executive.
The PPPC’s other tactic has been to resort to the courts of law. Attorney General Anil Nandlall, starting his campaign of litigation in March 2012, filed a Constitutional Motion in the High Court seeking to overturn a parliamentary vote on the composition of the Committee of Selection.  He then moved to the courts in an attempt to have the 2012 National Budget cuts reviewed and reversed and, again, to set aside the Speaker’s order prohibiting a government minister from speaking in the National Assembly and referring consideration of the matter to the Committee of Privilege.
The state-owned media – the National Communications Network (NCN), Government Information Agency (GINA) and the Guyana Chronicle newspaper that is published by Guyana National Newspapers Ltd (GNNL) – have relentlessly attacked opposition members of the National Assembly for the past twenty months since February 2012.
The state media have described Opposition Members and the Speaker on some occasions in scurrilous terms such as “irresponsible and reckless,” “vindictive and unprincipled” and “power drunk.” The Opposition has been accused of exercising “reckless and blatant opportunism.” The National Assembly was called a “sham and a veneer” and “an unruly horse.” Such has been the Executive branch’s contempt for the legislature!
The PPPC, clearly, is monkeying around with parliamentary democracy by disparaging the National Assembly. By so doing, it is turning Guyana into a less free country.

 

 

---

---