PROBABLY few Guyanese, if any, did not pay attention to United States 2016 presidential elections. If persons did not directly follow events, they would have been indirectly informed by others. One of the most memorable soundbites of the campaign was in First Lady Michelle Obama’s speech at the Democratic National Convention.
In apparent response to the verbal attacks President Barack Obama was facing, she told the world the family’s coping mechanism is built around the motto: “When they go low, we go high.” This statement became an international hit and probably one of the most profound in defining acceptable political behaviour. The Obamas left the White House with the president’s job approval rating at 53 percent, having won the 2012 election with 51 percent of the votes.

Last week’s raucous debate in the National Assembly during the Oil Commission Bill may be worthy of examining the political wisdom of the Obamas. The saying “it takes two to tango” remains useful, and whereas the Government side knows its capability to do the rough and tumble with the Opposition, it could be making a cardinal mistake.
Society’s growth and development require not only economic but also cultural, political and socially positive movements. There was a time in the hallowed halls of the people’s House when sarcasm and retort — acceptable art forms in politics — were done with such finesse that only the smart could understand and appreciate. One did not have to be highly lettered as so many in the days of yore weren’t, but the use of language, anecdotes and double entendre, not only brought laughter in the House and toward those receiving it. It also spelt of an era where animosity or disagreement did not require being coarse.
Guyana’s politics is at the crossroads where citizens are turned off, find it useless, see no light at the end of the tunnel, hope for improvement, or love it when their side is on the attack. Society suffers setbacks when its people are not interested in processes of government, or lose respect for those who hold high offices. No society can truly benefit from an apathetic electorate or low voter turnout, because it undermines the democratic processes necessary for involvement and progress.

The People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) in the post-Cheddi Jagan era, though known for its sharp-tongued politics, has taken this to another level which frankly is not for the better of society. Having perfected the new ‘art form,’ it is important to recognise responding or reacting in like measure is walking into the proverbial lion’s trap. It is hard, nay impossible, to beat the PPP/C in its entrapment and disruptive techniques, so it makes perfect sense to rise above it and let the society have the benefit of distinction. Trading invectives not only leads to more, create the environment where parliamentarians no longer look for merit or demerit in the other’s presentation, but waiting to give the ‘las lick’ as done in primary school. The public is not being served by the bawdiness.
It would be recalled, several earlier efforts by Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland to create an atmosphere of civility in the House. His efforts represent the public’s desire and with an eye to giving the people what they clamour for could create a society where politics is not about the lesser of two evils, but the better of the two.
It pays dividends to any who recognises the importance of differentiating politics where society is fed-up with the new normal of crassness. In days gone by, parliamentary speeches were highly anticipated and adults and the politically conscious tuned in to their radios, stood in the gallery, or on the road to hear the debates and their favourite speakers. Teachers also encouraged students to pay attention or held school tours to hear debates. Most in parliament today would have been beneficiaries of that era. Parliamentarians such as Boysie Ramkarran, Cheddi and Janet Jagan, Forbes Burnham, Kenneth Denny, Mohamed Shahabuddeen and Salahuddin were known for their sharp wit and biting sarcasm. Desmond Hoyte and Rudy Luck were known for their tongue-in-cheek offensives These are just a few examples.

It was not that Parliament back then was not loud and at times rowdy, but even in that environment it was a treat to both sides of the political divide hearing the articulation and the cut and thrust of friends and foes alike. An advantage the National Assembly presents is that of members’ speeches being archived, verbatim, through the Hansards. Where civility, and by extension relational development, is falling apart, it may be useful to recognise that high politics will always retain its pride of place and be rewarded in any society.