Using the recent occurrence in parliament as a teaching opportunity

Dec 28, 2018 Letters

---

 

DEAR EDITOR,

In our political process, members of parliament are not elected by a specific community to be its representative. In our system, parties win a number of votes, and these votes are given worth in terms of allocation of seats to the national assembly.
Persons occupying seats in parliament do so therefore, as representatives of the party that places trust in them to represent its agenda. Therefore, to offer oneself and to accept a seat in parliament means that one is signaling commitment to represent the interest of the party one was sent to represent. In this sense, as a party’s representative your vote is not your own.
It is true however, that there will be occasions and issues on which the party will release members to vote their ‘conscience.’ Here again, in a sense, one is adhering to the decisions, the lead of the party one has sworn to represent, even as one exercises his/her freedom. Further, parties release members to vote their conscience, usually on narrow specific social issues – should same sex marriages be made legal? Should parents be consulted before a child under the age of 17, is allowed to have an abortion?
To claim a right to vote against the party you swore to represent, in its fight to hold on to the most basic pursuit of political parties – power, is at least mischievous.
If, and when, one ceases to support the positions of the party that one agreed to represent in parliament, then the decent thing to do is to state one’s discontent to the leadership. If in the end one’s concerns are not given attention to one’s satisfaction, then the appropriate thing to do is to resign from the party that had bestowed on you the privilege to serve.
One is then free to seek a home within a party whose philosophy, behaviour is consistent with one’s values, or alternatively, retire from competitive party politics altogether. This is what civilized behaviour demands. Dissatisfaction cannot and must not be allowed to become a legitimate justification for treachery.
The Secretary of Defence in the Republican Government here in the USA, became dissatisfied with the government he represents and the president in particular. After privately airing his dissatisfaction, things reached the point where he recognized the disagreements with his president could not be rectified and camaraderie unlikely to be restored. He therefore submitted his letter of resignation, in which he laid out his dissatisfactions and his decision for leaving the administration.
James Mattis’s articulation was forceful, but respectful, and his reasoning logically articulated. This is the essence of proper, civilized behaviour when one disagrees with their political leadership. General Mattis did not wait for an opportunity to embarrass and betray his comrades as a way of dramatizing his dissatisfaction; he knew such behaviour would be unbecoming, wrong.
Today, leading politicians of both major parties in the USA are encouraging all Americans to read Mattis’s letter of resignation, and demanding that it be preserved for posterity. For it stands as an outstanding document of how one behaves when, previously close and trusted relationships can no longer be maintained.
In the light of this, what is the message that the recent behaviour of a dissatisfied member of parliament, leaving for posterity – for our children?
In defence of his actions, Mr Charrandass Persaud tells us that he did what he did at parliament on 21st December 2018, because he was incensed by what Minister Lawrence said to her party supporters and disappointed by Minister Trotman’s response or lack of same, to his (Mr. Persaud’s) expressed concerns. This tendency to blame others for our behaviour is not new, and regrettably, is beginning to dominate our culture.
The Guyana Chronicle of 30th December 2017 tells us of a young man who was jailed for stealing his boss’s vehicle. In court, in defence of his action, he told the court he had no remorse since the boss owed him money. Similarly, in the Chronicle of 20th June 2018, we read of another young man, in pleading not guilty to a charge of robbery, offered, as justification for his action, the excuse that the virtual complainant had threatened to kill him and had also pointed his finger in his face.
Sadly, our children have already learnt (from the likes of this ex-parliamentarian) a terrible truth – that in some circles, blaming others for our behaviour, is acceptable. In this regard, the danger of the ex-parliamentarian’s behaviour on Friday 21st December, 2018, is that it lends support to those who seek to popularize among the young, this unhealthy tendency of blaming others for their behaviour.
Knowing this and recognizing the threat that such a tendency poses to the fibre of our society, as parents, we must use the incident of Friday 21st December, 2018 for teaching our children an important life lesson.
Parents could use this incident for teaching children the need to take responsibility for their actions.
This is how we must encourage our children to understand this recent behaviour at parliament, this is how they must be encouraged to understand life, and take this understanding into consideration before they act.
For us to focus merely on the raw political consequence of the ex-member of parliament’s behaviour, will be a missed opportunity. Mr. Persaud’s behaviour gave rise to the need for attention to be given to other equally as important, if not greater concerns threatening our society today.

Respectfully,
Claudius Prince

---

---