There is a method to the pecking order in legislature politics

Feb 23, 2014 Letters

---

Dear Editor,
The brouhaha over MP Vanessa Kissoon’s reassigned seating in the National Assembly matters in the context of how such a decision was taken and what it can mean for future speaking assignments and time allotments. There is a method to the pecking order in legislature politics. People are not usually willy-nilly placed, because parliament is not only a place for representation, passing bills or motions, it is also a place for debates. There is a language/communication behind seating that also informs analysts as to importance of issues within the group and concomitant attention likely to be paid thereto.
Shrewd leaders will seek to create an arrangement where usually they and deputy occupy the first two seats in the front row, followed by shadow ministers (in rank of importance to agenda). The second and third rows comprise a mix that would factor in balance in debating strength, support to the front-benchers, seniority in the House, etc. The Chief Whip plays an important role in that this function has lead responsibility to rally the group for votes in favour of the party’s position; determine the order of importance for bills, motions to be sent to the Clerk; who will debate and for how long; and ensure that the debates flowing from their respective side of the House are smart, consistent and can keep the opposing side enthralled, befuddled and rip-away at their deficiencies.  Seating matters!
In that presently our legislature may not pay heed to these protocols or all its members may not be of the debating nimbleness of earlier forerunners is not an excuse to disregard a protocol (seating) that has historically seen the National Assembly as a place where persons look to learn, hone and improve their public speaking, oratory and communication skills.
Having said that, Mr. David Granger’s admittance that MP Kissoon’s reassigned seating was an administrative decision cannot be divorced from- 1) the operations as stated above, 2) the fact that Ms. Kissoon was not notified prior to being reassigned and Mr. Granger’s apparent cavalier attitude to this form of disrespect, and 3) Ms. Amna Ally’s consternation the unethical action attracted criticism and media attention.
Ms. Kissoon was moved to prove a point, to clip her wings, to show who is boss! If this was not a naked abuse of power what else is it, and if seating were not important why not leave Ms. Kissoon where she was in the second row? Or why not seat the Leader of the group or Chief Whip in the last row? Let us call a spade for what it is- a spade.
If Mr. Granger and Ms. Ally who are mouthing they want to change the disrespecting and disrespectful national political culture- the liberty is taken here that their call is genuine- then they too must by example lead in pursuant of the change they seek by first applying it within their group and be tolerant to it when applied by those within the group. In other words, they have to be the change they require!
Thus it is unfortunate Mr. Granger, rather than being the matured one in the room- over Ms. Kissoon’s objection to being handled in a disrespectful manner by Ms. Ally during APNU/PNC outreach in Linden- allowed Ms. Ally to flex her ‘muscles’ as the Chief Whip in reseating Ms. Kissoon without her prior knowledge and involvement based on a matter that should have never been resolved using this approach. This is no way to treat this matter of disagreement. It exemplifies a character trait of bullies and those who want to manage by command. It will not work today. Not even in a military setting where today countries like the USA are revisiting the manner in which senior officers are engaging with and dispensing orders to their juniors. Times have changed and Mr. Granger and Ms. Ally must be aware of this, risk being confronted or fossilised.
And for what this may mean for Ms. Kissoon who has handled this entire affair with dignity from the get go, I’d say to her, she should aim to be the best back bencher there ever was and use the power vested in her by the People of Region 10 to ensure she is given quality time to speak on matters that affect them (similar to when she was higher up in the pecking order given her parliamentary seniority and position as Geographic MP). This issue should not be a cage that contains her, but one that liberates her to continue to challenge herself and do what’s right by the people.
It is very disappointing that Mr. Christopher Jones, MP and GYSM Leader when called upon to address this matter couldn’t display the strength of character, choosing instead a vacuous response. Mr. Granger and Ms. Ally must politically evolve, do some serious introspection and realise they are abusing the power vested in them by the people. This power is not for them to settle intra-group fictional political scores and despise those who will not kow-tow to their arrogance and intolerance. If the lesson both can take away from this is that they are living in the days when they will be held to their words. And if they are serious about changing the national political attitude, they have to remember they too will be held to what they profess.
Leaders have to practice what they preach!
Minette Bacchus

---

---