IT was evident, when the results of the 2011 electoral poll had been declared, that with all it portended for an unprecedented Parliamentary configuration, and though fraught with challenges, it presented a unique opportunity for closer collaboration between the Executive and the Parliamentary Opposition parties at that new phase of the nation’s political history.

This historical development elevated the term “new dispensation” to a new prominence in the Guyanese political lexicon. Specifically speaking, for most Guyanese constituents on both sides of the political divide, this term meant a positive change, whereby all the leaders would rise above narrow political cleavages for the national good.

Now, almost two years later, the sum total of this lofty expectation has been an abysmal letdown for a nation that had expected so much, particularly from its political opposition parties, when it found itself in a newfound position to assist in the realization of the many goals set in motion by the socio-economic transformation process.

This extra seat for the combined opposition, comprising A Partnership For National Unity (APNU) and the Alliance For Change (AFC), meant for them an opportunity to openly display brazen power politics, used for the imposition of Parliamentary diktat in a behaviour pattern that reeked of unconscionable and vindictive politics and utter recklessness that, in time, reduced the august assembly to an environment where all the time-honoured tenets of Parliamentary principles were trampled underfoot by an opposition whose principal pre-occupation was to prove “who run things”.

The much-promised opposition medium of consensual politics as a means of taking the nation through its most delicate period was never deployed as a strategy, with the naked grabbing of both the Chairs of the Speaker and Deputy Speaker becoming the first casualty of a decided policy of non-cooperation by both the APNU and the AFC parties.

Even the Speaker’s ruling, merely reinforcing a prior given judicial decision which ruled against an opposition motion that had denied the Minister of Home Affairs the constitutional Parliamentary right of representing, was ignored by particularly APNU’s leader David Granger. This was a tragedy for the Speaker’s authority, and plunged the functions of the House to an all time low. In fact, Speaker Trotman was forced to leave the House proceedings in disgust, because of intransigent conduct from the Opposition side of the House.

Therefore, the recent verdict by Clerk of the Assembly, Mr. Sherlock Isaacs, that the current Tenth Parliament is the ‘worst’ he has experienced, is no surprise, since, as advisor and director of the procedural aspects of the House, he has had to manage sittings made stressful by an opposition whose modus operandi is to ignore every known House procedure. The fact that he has publicly declared an understandable fear for his physical health, coupled with an appeal to President Ramotar to be relieved of his duties and be paid “his full benefits”, illustrates a thorough disgust of a process that has become distorted by unreasonable opposition demands.

And this is exemplified by the specific case of Leader Granger, whose demand that the Clerk releases the Bills forthwith would have precipitated the latter’s public statement.

Obviously, this was not a decision that the Assembly Clerk suddenly made, and it clearly reveals how much the nation’s Parliament has become hijacked by the tyranny of a one-seat majority, and its functions daily distorted by actions that are not in the national interest.
This, undoubtedly, would have greatly impacted on Mr. Isaacs’s discipline and understanding of the procedural order and workings of the Assembly.

Granger’s written demand of Isaacs underlines the naked bullyism that has been the constant tool of opposition Parliamentary tactics. Moreso, it again reveals either a total ignorance of House procedures, or a deliberate situation to create further Parliamentary anarchy, especially on the part of APNU.

This party leader must be reminded that the nation’s highest deliberative body is governed by strict procedural processes, which must be adhered to and respected for proper, coherent administrative functioning. It is entirely different from the military, which seemed to have moulded Granger’s entire approach to national affairs at the highest level of this nation.

Ironically, though, he would have insisted on his former military subordinate according unchallenged respect to the army’s rules. Why not now respect Mr. Isaacs’s functions?