Theatrics overshadow substance

Jul 28, 2026 Features / Columnists, Peeping Tom

---

(Kaieteur News) – Parliament has never been a silent chamber. Around the world, legislatures have always been places where members interrupt, heckle, applaud loudly, exchange sharp remarks and use wit to make political points.

These moments are part of parliamentary democracy. They reflect passion, disagreement and the clash of competing ideas, and no one expects every sitting to resemble a quiet classroom.

However, there is an important difference between spirited debate and deliberate disruption. Theatrics should add colour to parliamentary proceedings, not prevent parliament from carrying out its constitutional duty.

The greatest purpose of any parliament is not entertainment but accountability. It exists so that matters affecting the lives of citizens can be debated openly, fully and without unnecessary obstruction.

A compelling case could have been made for the National Assembly to adjourn its ordinary business and debate the sinking of the M.V. Barima. Parliamentary rules generally require that three conditions be met before normal business is suspended- the matter must be definite, of public importance and urgent.

There can be little argument that the sinking of the M.V. Barima satisfied the first requirement. It was a specific and identifiable event, not a vague complaint or a broad policy disagreement.

Nor can anyone seriously dispute that it was a matter of public importance. It involved the tragic loss of lives, the safety of public transportation, and questions about the effectiveness of emergency response and the safety and integrity of the country’s maritime systems.

The third requirement, urgency, is often the most difficult hurdle. This is often the reason why speakers in many Commonwealth legislatures have frequently rejected motions.

The meaning of urgency has long been explained in parliamentary practice. In 1950, the Speaker of the Indian Parliament observed: “The crucial test always is as to whether the question proposed to be raised has arisen suddenly and created an emergent situation of such a character that there is prima facie case of urgency and the House must therefore leave aside all other business and take up the consideration of the urgent matter at the appointed hour.”

The ruling continued by stating that the urgency must be of such a character that the matter “brooks no delay” and should be discussed on the very day notice is given. That principle has remained one of the clearest explanations of what parliamentary urgency means.

A former speaker of Guyana’s National Assembly expressed much the same view. He explained that, “The matter must be a clear emergency. It must have arisen suddenly in a manner of an emergency and should not have arisen over a series of weeks.”

He also relied upon Erskine May, the authoritative guide to parliamentary practice, which states that a continuing grievance is generally not sufficient to qualify as a matter of urgent public importance. In other words, urgency is measured by suddenness and the need for immediate parliamentary attention.

 

The sinking of the M.V. Barima plainly met that test. It occurred suddenly, created a national emergency and triggered an unprecedented search and rescue operation that was ongoing.

There was therefore every reason for Parliament to suspend its routine agenda. Few issues could have been more deserving of immediate debate than a national tragedy involving so many lives.

It is understood that APNU submitted a motion seeking a debate about the terms of reference. That is a moot point now but the original motion could have been amended to debate the tragedy and the response. This would have provided the opportunity to question ministers, receive updates and reassure a grieving nation that Parliament was fully engaged.

Instead, attention appeared to shift elsewhere. The We Invest in Nationhood (WIN) party seemed more interested in preventing the debate, while APNU unfortunately appeared to abandon the opportunity for debate by becoming drawn into the resulting confrontation.

The result was that parliamentary theatrics overshadowed parliamentary substance. The public was left watching drama instead of hearing reasoned discussion about rescue efforts, maritime safety and the way forward.

This was a missed opportunity for every side of the House. One possible explanation is that some members lacked confidence in debating the issue on its merits.

A serious discussion would have required careful arguments supported by facts rather than slogans and gestures. It would appear that the Opposition parties were not confident that they could win in a debate, and so they opted for histrionics.

Perhaps the Opposition, at this stage, lacked strong or compelling grounds on which to establish government negligence. Faced with the difficulty of mounting a persuasive case, political theatre may have appeared easier than intellectual engagement.

Whatever the reason, Parliament should always remember its primary purpose. It exists to debate the nation’s most pressing concerns, especially when lives have been lost and the country seeks understanding.

Democracy is strengthened by vigorous debate, not by disorder for its own sake. There is a place for repartee, applause and even the occasional theatrical flourish, but there should never be a place for conduct that prevents Parliament from discussing matters of definite, urgent and public importance.

(The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of this newspaper.)

---

• APNU, Peeping Tom, We Invest in Nationhood

---