.jpg)
SOMEONE visiting Guyana for the first time cannot help but see a naked, vulgar scramble for political power frequenting the headline news every day, and as if nothing else is important. In this political jostle, that person also would see politicians aggressively placing their self-interest above national interest. The crude scramble for political power has become more noticeable since the November 2011 national and regional election. That election produced a new political calculus -– a minority Government and a one-seat combined constitutional Opposition majority in parliament — the precise ingredients for producing the vulgar scramble for political power.
Let me now define these terms: minority government and a constitutional opposition. A minority government (subsequently referred to as ‘Government’) has a governing cabinet but not a parliamentary majority. A constitutional opposition (subsequently referred to as ‘Opposition’) accepts the legitimacy of the state and is organized to work within the constitution (Norton, 2008, The Journal of Legislative Studies).
The new political calculus, however, is not germane for advancing economic and social development, as the Government’s program is at the mercy of the Opposition’s majority vote, particularly without a second chamber to temper that majority power.
Previously, I noted that in the U.S., if Congress only had one chamber instead of its current two chambers – House of Representatives and the Senate -, then the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as Obamacare) would have been repealed; in fact since 2010, the Republicans attempted 37 times to repeal this law.
And in Guyana, a few negative consequences, among others, flowing from this detrimental political calculus included the recent huge 15% national budget cut, rejection of the second readings of significant bills (Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2013; Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2013; Fire Service (Change of Name) Bill 2013), proposed repealing of several legislations, attempted unconstitutional removal of a Minister (unconstitutional because only the President can effect such action), constant bickering in parliament not consonant with parliamentary behaviors.
There are concerns in some quarters that this political calculus could be a recipe for ‘developmental’ disaster, where ultimately the country suffers. What seems to be even worse is that some opposition mandarins apparently function as if they have a mandate and are working overtime to discredit and halt each and every aspect of the Government’s program.
The combined Opposition has the constitutional right to expose the government to public challenge and oversight as studies have shown (Norton, 2008), but not to use mere majority numbers in a spirit of raw power play and seeming vengeance to destroy the Government’s program and subsequently its sector policies.
If that is the case, then, perhaps, the combined Opposition ceases to function as a parliamentary opposition, as it would seem to take on the false perception of being the government vis-a-vis its majority, and/or having control over the Government’s program. At least, that is the impression an outsider would have of this distraught parliament.
It stands to reason that in the context of the existing political calculus, some mutual trust and cooperation between the Government and the combined Opposition are necessary; but not to the point where there is a blurring of distinction between the Government and Opposition.
In order to have a thriving and stable society, there has to be some regard for these institutions – Government and Opposition -, but more so allegiance to the Constitution. David Brooks of The New York Times in another context noted that “for society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures.”
In order to still the winds of the parliamentary rumpus, the combined Opposition within a context of mutuality could use its majority numbers in a spirit of rational nation building to address the Government’s sector policies. But should this parliamentary ruckus continues, observers may see a parliament with a troubled existence and a parliament that functions with consistent procrastinating vacillation. This parliamentary behavior and the new political calculus eventually will put a hold on democracy and development.
Let me now define these terms: minority government and a constitutional opposition. A minority government (subsequently referred to as ‘Government’) has a governing cabinet but not a parliamentary majority. A constitutional opposition (subsequently referred to as ‘Opposition’) accepts the legitimacy of the state and is organized to work within the constitution (Norton, 2008, The Journal of Legislative Studies).
The new political calculus, however, is not germane for advancing economic and social development, as the Government’s program is at the mercy of the Opposition’s majority vote, particularly without a second chamber to temper that majority power.
Previously, I noted that in the U.S., if Congress only had one chamber instead of its current two chambers – House of Representatives and the Senate -, then the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (known as Obamacare) would have been repealed; in fact since 2010, the Republicans attempted 37 times to repeal this law.
And in Guyana, a few negative consequences, among others, flowing from this detrimental political calculus included the recent huge 15% national budget cut, rejection of the second readings of significant bills (Evidence (Amendment) Bill 2013; Motor Vehicles and Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill 2013; Fire Service (Change of Name) Bill 2013), proposed repealing of several legislations, attempted unconstitutional removal of a Minister (unconstitutional because only the President can effect such action), constant bickering in parliament not consonant with parliamentary behaviors.
There are concerns in some quarters that this political calculus could be a recipe for ‘developmental’ disaster, where ultimately the country suffers. What seems to be even worse is that some opposition mandarins apparently function as if they have a mandate and are working overtime to discredit and halt each and every aspect of the Government’s program.
The combined Opposition has the constitutional right to expose the government to public challenge and oversight as studies have shown (Norton, 2008), but not to use mere majority numbers in a spirit of raw power play and seeming vengeance to destroy the Government’s program and subsequently its sector policies.
If that is the case, then, perhaps, the combined Opposition ceases to function as a parliamentary opposition, as it would seem to take on the false perception of being the government vis-a-vis its majority, and/or having control over the Government’s program. At least, that is the impression an outsider would have of this distraught parliament.
It stands to reason that in the context of the existing political calculus, some mutual trust and cooperation between the Government and the combined Opposition are necessary; but not to the point where there is a blurring of distinction between the Government and Opposition.
In order to have a thriving and stable society, there has to be some regard for these institutions – Government and Opposition -, but more so allegiance to the Constitution. David Brooks of The New York Times in another context noted that “for society to function well, there have to be basic levels of trust and cooperation, a respect for institutions and deference to common procedures.”
In order to still the winds of the parliamentary rumpus, the combined Opposition within a context of mutuality could use its majority numbers in a spirit of rational nation building to address the Government’s sector policies. But should this parliamentary ruckus continues, observers may see a parliament with a troubled existence and a parliament that functions with consistent procrastinating vacillation. This parliamentary behavior and the new political calculus eventually will put a hold on democracy and development.
