(PULL QUOTE) ‘In the Aristotelian vein, many politicians in the parliamentary chamber in Guyana fail to realise that their responsibility first and foremost is to promote the happiness of the citizens of Guyana, especially the poor and vulnerable.’
ARISTOTLE once said that politics is the result of humans being the only herd animals talented enough to talk to each other; through talking to each other and reasoning, Aristotle believed that politicians as humans could decide what is good and evil or just and unjust, not for themselves as politicians but for the society. Well, Aristotle probably had a different understanding of politics as we know it today in Guyana because either the politicians from different sides of the political aisle do not talk to each other, or if they do, sometimes it is not sincere; and there are others who with sincerity talk to each other but without achieving anything. Indeed, we have the odd times when politicians may talk to each other and do get some things done.

However, very frequently politicians do not reach agreement on matters of national or public interest, resulting in a downward slide for Guyana. The question at issue then is what it would take to reach agreement on matters of public interest, so as to decide what is good or evil for Guyana.
Concluding agreements in the National Assembly invariably becomes a predictable ‘no’ against the Government as Executive. Why? The 10th Parliament arrived with a one-seat majority opposition – A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) and Alliance For Change (AFC) – which came to the opening of Parliament armed with ambitious perceptions and wild expectations of controlling the ruling People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C) agenda and programme of activities.
Any opposition’s control of any executive’s agenda implies that that opposition is the de facto executive. It is not surprising, then, that the one-seat combined opposition majority in Guyana would want to follow this trail. Being outside of the Executive, the combined opposition for all intents and purposes expected to wield actual executive powers by virtue of its one-seat majority vis-à-vis its illegal actions in the budgetary process over the last two years in the National Assembly.
In a previous issue, I said: “…Recently acting Chief Justice Ian Chang ordered compliance with the rules governing the budgetary process in the National Assembly, and asserted that there were clear violations of constitutional rules in the budget cuts over the last two years. In making his ruling, the Acting Chief Justice invoked Article 171 (2) (a) (ii) and Article 218 of the Constitution… “
In the course of lawlessness in the National Assembly, matters of national importance get lost in parliamentary talking points and translation. For instance, last week in the course of the PPP/C Government’s efforts to update and present the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering the Financing of Terrorism (AML/CFT) Amendment Bill to the Paris Plenary of the Caribbean Financial Action Task Force (CFATF), at the eleventh hour, the main Opposition APNU tabled amendments.
APNU’s action delayed parliamentary progress and agreement on the AML/CFT Amendment Bill. Even though the CFATF at that Paris Plenary last week did not recommend any action against Guyana at this time, it certainly would have inserted a red flag on Guyana.
This parliamentary action of presenting amendments at the final moment when so much of the national interest is at stake may be irresponsible behaviour. But some may argue that the doctrine of ‘separation of powers’ allows APNU to execute its legislative functions separately from the other branches of government and to do so efficiently (Verkuil, 1989); and apparently, APNU feels it was the appropriate time to present such amendments, and that it acted within the realm of legitimacy. But Justice Brandeis countered that the intent of the separation of powers was “not to promote efficiency but to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power” (Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 293 (1926) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). There are some who would say that the main combined Opposition party APNU acted arbitrarily by taking advantage of its one-seat majority, solely in its self-interest and not in the national interest.
In the Aristotelian vein, many politicians in the parliamentary chamber in Guyana fail to realise that their responsibility first and foremost is to promote the happiness of the citizens of Guyana, especially the poor and vulnerable.
Written By Dr. Prem Misir