MORE than once, we have addressed in our editorials matters relating to Parliament. This is so given the importance of the legislature, which is the nation’s supreme democratic organ of decision-making. Given the role this institution plays in the nation’s body politic, it would, ever so often, come in for scrutiny.Sitting in our Parliament are members from the Government and Opposition sides. In the context of inclusionary democracy, as outlined in Article 13 of the Guyana Constitution, which was addressed in the editorial captioned “Making Article 13 work for all” (February 11, 2016), the role of the Opposition in representing its supporters’ interest is not merely to oppose, but also to propose, and support where necessary.

In short, the Opposition shoulders watchdog and patterning responsibilities in governance.

The Opposition in our society is so named by virtue of not securing the Executive; and as this society evolves, it redounds to the nation’s best interest if the stated factors can be considered and embraced.

That apart, the Parliament, under the Constitution, is allowed to make its own rules governing its conduct. These rules, known as Standing Orders, combined with universal ethics, have characterised the nature of engagement on the people’s business, and interaction and rebuttal among colleagues and across the aisle, which must be maintained.

Ours is a political culture that can be loud and at times combative. It is who we are as Guyanese, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with the robust and vociferous nature of our politics, given the passion it evokes, it is not unreasonable to expect a couple of basic civil features. In this Information Age, we not only know what is happening in the august house through media coverage, but observation in real time through live broadcasting and online streaming. This means that Guyanese lawmakers are on public display, not only for Guyanese at home — who can have the benefit of observing and commenting on the proceedings — but also for those in the diaspora, and anyone who cares to pay attention. Debate, by its very nature, is competitive, since it sets out to present an argument of ‘correctness’ of a position from the proposer and rebutter, and both sides are desirous of winning persons over to their side.

In politics, in addition to this feature — given that our Members of Parliament (MPs) are dealing with real life issues, law-making, and the management of the nation’s resources — debates are expected to be conducted with a high level of seriousness, understanding of the issue(s), and robust defense of the position. Achieving this requires preparedness and marshalling of the issues. It also brings with it a level of dexterity and nimbleness of intellect that facilitates one thinking on one’s feet and responding to issue(s) substantively, as against idle chat.

The older generation has recalled, with fondness and admiration, the ‘good ole days’ when persons attended Parliament, stood in front of Parliament Building, or eagerly awaited news coverage of the MPs’ presentations. This was reportedly an event wherein persons not only took pride and joy in their party and favourite MPs, but commented admirably on the ability of the opponent. The cut-and-thrust, wit, and use of the language (Latin, Creolese, English and French) were sources of education, inspiration and admiration for political watchers, aspirants, students, et al.
In short, parliamentary debates were education and training ground.

There are talks, with reverence, of MPs speaking to their presentations with the occasional glance to ensure focus, as against reading the presentations, as ever so often seen today. And dare it be said that this is a feature of debating that requires skill, preparedness, and thorough understanding of the issues. This feature should return in our Parliament. Evidently, there is need for training in debating skills. While the political parties may, in the past, have done this internally, MPs took the time to learn, the talented were sent to Parliament, or Parliament provided such training.

It matters not what had obtained then; what matters now in this Information Age is that parliamentary debates and cut-and-thrust should return to the level where they are not only a source of healthy disagreement and discourse, but also where persons — more particularly students — have positive experiences and society can feel assured that their representatives are addressing their well-being with the seriousness it deserves.