WITHOUT resort to sophistry of language, in every state there is a particular building that is the meeting place for a very special collective. Whether known as the House of Commons; House of Representatives; or simply Parliament or the National Assembly, as in Guyana’s case, it has to be the most important place in that country, as in every other, since its business is about the making of the country’s laws.

Equally, it means that those persons elected by the people are very important as a collective, as they are the ones who make the laws. Whether branded as Members of Parliament; senators etcetera, their role is critical in terms of determining the political, social and economic direction of the particular state. Therefore, it is no coincidence that they are described as lawmakers.

Arising out of this milieu is the Speaker. As the name implies, this high parliamentary functionary is the prime mover of the total proceedings that take place in this principal state building. As its chief referee, the Speaker has to be impartial, in addition to having a multiplicity of functions, chief among them being to ensure proper order of parliamentary proceedings, where debates are to be civil; ensuring that parliamentarians do not infringe on any of the House’s rules, and that their personal conduct does not threaten good order and discipline.

In fact, in a Commonwealth Parliament, “All debate [sic] is carried out through the Speaker and it is to him or her, therefore, that all speeches are addressed. The Speaker will ensure that (Members of Parliament (MPs) are not interrupted unless they agree to give way, but MPs who obstruct or disturb proceedings will be called to order. At worst, the Speaker can even arrange for an MP to be suspended from further proceedings of the House or to be removed from the Chamber.”

(siteresources.worldbank.org/PSGLP/Resources/commonwealthunit2.)
So eminently powerful is this Chief Officer of Parliament, because of the functions that are embodied in the office, that even if a Member of the House is speaking and the Speaker intervene, that House member is mandated to immediately cease for that moment and take his/her seat, until the Speaker completes whatever is the statement.

It needs not be reminded then that a nation’s parliament is indeed an august environment, with very, very important rules of which every elected member must always clearly be mindful, whenever they enter its sacred chambers for matters in the name of the nation.
On November 2, 2017, there was a shameful violation of the time-honoured tenets of the nation’s Parliament. It was Guyana’s day of infamy, when People’s Progressive Party/Civic(PPP/C) members in a shocking display of disrespect, loudly interrupted the address to the National Assembly by President David Arthur Granger.

On Monday, there was another blatant and deliberate display of disrespect, albeit in a different form, when a PPP/C Member of Parliament disobeyed the Speaker’s instructions to be seated. Even as the Speaker was calling the MP to order, he continued to challenge the Speaker in a loud and belligerent manner. This resulted in the latter ordering the recalcitrant Member of the House, suspended and to leave the Assembly. This order was also refused and the rest that ensued was another shameful chapter in the nation’s parliamentary history.

Unequivocally, we condemn this most reprehensible conduct by this House member, who is purported to be a man of the cloth. It is inconceivable that this shocking disregard for the National Assembly procedures, read to the entire house, before proceedings of the day started, could have been attempted to be barefacedly challenged by this Assembly member. What message is this rude behaviour intended for the nation?
How could this emanate from a lawmaker, with full support from his fellow opposition Member of Parliament colleagues?

Unprecedented in its occurrence, it has to be asked for what purpose or end did this Member of Parliament commit such a procedural blasphemy?
Such a category of citizens should be seen as paramount examples of upholding laws; for, it would be the gravest act of contradiction for lawmakers not to be upholders of the very laws to which they subscribe.

This latest, desecrating behaviour must have caused the entire nation, particularly its younger-aged segment, to further question the civility of our parliamentary leaders, as to not only the manner in which they conduct the nation’s affairs, but also the respect shown to important national institutions such as our Parliament and its Speaker.
If such lawmakers are breakers of their parliamentary codes of conduct, as they certainly are, then they are thoroughly unfit to be part of this country’s lawmaking process.