Society must leave this experience feeling more empowered

Dec 20, 2018 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,

Guyana has had precedence of No-Confidence Motions in the National Assembly.
Prior to the attempted use in 2014 against the Donald Ramotar Government it was used, within recent times, in 2010 against the then Minister of Labour Manzoor Nadir with regards to his handling of the industrial impasse at the Bauxite Company of Guyana Incorporated (BCGI).
This motion was brought by then Leader of the Opposition Robert Corbin of the PNC and supported by the AFC. The Opposition lost the vote because it had a minority presence in the House.
It should further be said that the issues that lead to the impasse have not yet been resolved, even though those who condemned the PPP/C government are now in office, and in a position to right the wrongs in the transgressing of the rights of the working class and the violating of the Labour Laws.
A no-confidence motion is meant to move either the individual or government from office based on performance, with those bringing the motion thinking that the individual or government has fallen tremendously short in the execution of duties. However, when it comes to the removal of a government, it has greater implications.
In July 2014 when Moses Nagamootoo floated the idea of a no-confidence motion against the Donald Ramotar Government it was against the backdrop of the administration’s spending of over $4Billion which in the first instance was not approved by the House, and considered in violation of Articles 217 to 220 of the Guyana Constitution. The act was seen as a defiance of the authority of the House to oversee and approve public spending.
The November 2014 motion said that “this National Assembly has no confidence in the government.” The Opposition in 2014 had the parliamentary majority. With the Ramotar government having a parliamentary minority and where Members of Parliament traditionally vote along party/group line, the government in an effort to avoid losing the vote opted to prorogue the Parliament.
This was a new application of the prorogation clause, and presented the Parliament – the nation’s highest decision making forum – from debating the issue, which placed the country in uncharted and thorny waters. Early elections were called because the Propagation clause forced it.
In November 2018, a no-confidence against the David Granger/Moses Nagamootoo government is being brought by the Opposition PPP/C which has a parliamentary minority. Instructively, this motion was submitted a few days after the Local Government Elections (LGE) that saw the lowest turnout in the last three LGE, where APNU and the AFC lost showing and the PPP/C made inroads into the areas considered strongholds of the coalition government. The PPP/C, confident about its performance at the LGE, is exerting political pressure on the coalition.
Win or lose what the PPP/C is clearly attempting to do is that of mobilising its base to take the reins of government. It is for the coalition to decide what it wants, not just its base, but also the wider society, to take away from this experience. It is also instructive that the no-confidence motion is exactly the same time when the life of the previous government was challenged (three years).
As an aside, it can be construed that while the PPP/C is playing hardball, the country is being held at ransom with tit for tat politics. It is instructive to note that the manoeuvres are made after the parliamentarians (new) have qualified to receive pensions. Win or lose their pension is assured, they have nothing to lose.
Having the majority should not see automatic complacency and continuity of the debased conduct, equally as it is for having the minority and seeing this serious issue as that of showmanship. The issue of the motion must not only be about voting in the National Assembly, but must be marked by a historic turning away from the debased conduct, with regards to attitude, presentations and substance of the debate.
Like those who have spoken out, including the media, parliamentary decorum and presentations have reached its lowest point from both sides of the House. The art of heckling has been reduced to crassness, and evidently little time is being taken to research and acquaint oneself with the material or subject under review. Wit has become a rarity in presentation, interruption and rebuttal.
The nation will be watching. In 2014, the PPP/C government denied society the opportunity in having a parliamentary debate on the no-confidence motion through the misapplication of the prorogation. From indications, at the time of writing, the Coalition Government has communicated it will have a parliamentary debate on the motion. Unless the motion is withdrawn or some other unforeseen circumstance prevents its debate and decision-making, society must leave this experience feeling more empowered. Any no-confidence motion against any government, at the end of the day the people, on both sides of the political divide, must come away with appreciation and understanding of the debate and see justice in the argumentations and decision made.

Lincoln Lewis

---

---