GOVERNMENT Member of Parliament (MP), Dr. Leslie Ramsammy, over the weekend, came out in strong support of President Donald’s Ramotar exercise of his authority, relative to the happenings in the National Assembly.

Below is the full text of his statement:
Last Tuesday, November 4, President Donald Ramotar addressed the nation. The President called on the political parties to work together to further the development of Guyana. He specifically called on the National Assembly to accelerate its work and complete long outstanding legislative matters which are critical to the development of Guyana. The President requested the immediate convening of Parliament and provided a list of legislative imperatives that must be pursued with diligence and completed in the interest of our people.
President Donald Ramotar reminded the leaders and the MPs from all political parties that he has a constitutional responsibility to ensure that the Parliament serves to promote development in Guyana and if in his judgment Parliament becomes obstructive, the constitution provides him with two options to remedy the problem:
* The President might prorogue Parliament for a period of up to six months to allow the political parties time to work out a way forward or
* The President could dissolve Parliament.
President Ramotar made it clear that he respects the Opposition’s right to pursue a No-Confidence motion to satisfy their personal agenda, but he sees that there are vital pieces of legislation that must be completed as priorities in the interest of Guyana. He signalled his intention that unless the Opposition shows that they will cooperate to complete the outstanding legislative agenda, he will use the constitutional options that is part of his duty.
I am unequivocally in support of the President’s position regarding the Parliament of Guyana. It is his duty to intervene in the present political quagmire and stalemate that threaten to suffocate the development of Guyana. To sit by idly and do nothing would be an abdication of his sworn duty.
As a Member of Parliament and as a citizen of Guyana, I am absolutely disappointed and frustrated by the abuses of parliamentary privileges by APNU and AFC and I am disgusted by the use of Parliament as a weapon to stagnate development as a political strategy to diminish social and economic development under the PPP/C Government.
It is under these circumstances that I absolutely support the President in considering his constitutional authority to end the abuses of Parliamentary privileges and I urge that the President does not delay in using his authority. I am encouraged that the President is willing to shoulder the difficult task of carrying out his duties to protect the interest of our people.
WILLING TO COMPROMISE
The President was compromising to the Opposition parties, calling for them to work with him for the good of our people and country. In spite of his accommodating offer to the Opposition parties, the President made it clear that he would also fully utilise his constitutional rights, responsibilities and duty to protect our people and our country from arbitrary abuse of the Parliament. He assured the country that he would not allow any person, group or political party to deliberately suffocate the brave onward trajectory of development Guyana has experienced in the last 20 years and the longest period of consecutive economic growth in Guyana and in any CARICOM country.
There were two specific and overlapping actions that the President wanted for Guyana. First, the President wanted an early resumption of sittings of the National Assembly. The second is that the President wants the National Assembly to accelerate its work so as to complete a set of legislative actions that are critical for the sustainable development of our country. Both of these are mature and responsible positions.
The Opposition has publicly stated before and after the President’s address that they intend to pursue a single agenda item in Parliament – a No-Confidence Motion. This is their constitutional right. But the Opposition must understand that right is not unfettered and the President also has constitutional remedies to respond in an environment of non-cooperation by the Opposition. That right emanates from the same constitution. The Opposition cannot on one hand argue that because it is a right conferred on them by the constitution that they are correct in their approach and then rebuke and challenge the President when he wants to use rights conferred on him by the same constitution.
In strong democracies, the constitution does not allow anyone to wield unfettered power. The Opposition is playing games with the lives of people by abusing constitutional rights. However, the constitution provides the President with options of his own to prevent anyone from derailing national democratic processes. Compromise is necessary and the President is asking for compromises.
FAILED DISPENSATION
There is absolute consensus that the political dispensation that the 2011 elections provided for Guyana has failed to enhance Guyana’s development and, to the contrary, the dispensation where the combined Opposition has one more parliamentary seat is a real barrier to social and economic development for ALL OUR PEOPLE.
The new dispensation has not led to more collaboration between Government and the Opposition, but has encouraged the Opposition to adopt an arrogance that has enshrined a parliamentary dictatorship.
The Speaker of the National Assembly dismissed the President’s call for resumption of Parliament within two weeks by saying the President overstepped his bounds. The President is the Head of Parliament which is made up of the President and the National Assembly. The President can prorogue, dissolve, convene meetings to address his matters etc. When the President feels that the National Assembly is not functioning in the interest of the people he can give directions, as he sought to do in his address to the nation.
Should those directions be ignored, the constitution provides the President with follow-up remedial actions, such as the proroguing or dissolution of Parliament. The President using his authority and performing his duty instructed that the Parliament set a date for resumption from the recess and gave directions to complete the legislative matters before the National Assembly. This was the President performing his duty as outlined in the constitution. The Prime Minister as House Leader is an officer under the President and the President was properly providing instructions. The Speaker overstepped his bounds and his arrogance in seeking to restrict the President must not be allowed to stand.
The constitution confers on the President a duty to either prorogue or dissolve Parliament and prepare Guyana for elections when he feels that the country is not moving in the right direction or that the Opposition is acting in a manner inimical to the interest and welfare of the people and the country. In making his case that either the Opposition collaborate in a compromising environment and move the legislative agenda or that as President he accedes to his duty of proroguing or dissolving Parliament, the President was demonstrating a responsible and mature position.
In fact, should the President show an unwillingness to exercise his constitutional duty in the face of an Opposition which acts every time against the interest of the people, his non-action would constitute a dereliction of duty and an abrogation of his responsibility!
DYSFUNCTIONAL 10TH PARLIAMENT
The truth is the 10th Parliament has been dysfunctional and reminds all of us of the dictatorial abuse of the National Assembly by the PNC between 1968 and 1992 (the 1st to the 5th Parliament). Since the 6th Parliament beginning in 1992, after the October 5th 1992 General Elections, the PPP/C has led a parliamentary reform process that has transformed the National Assembly into a meaningful institution that drives the social and economic development and that underlines a strong participatory democracy in our country.
The 10th Parliament has recklessly dismantled the many reforms the PPP/C led National Assembly effected between 1992 and 2011. From the inception of the 10th Parliament in December 2011, APNU and AFC have combined their forces to reverse the many rules and practices that made Guyana’s Parliament a model for participatory democracy.
The list of abuses by APNU and AFC show how they have meticulously use a one-seat advantage through their combined forces to create a dysfunctional parliament, one that serves as a barrier, rather than as a catalyst for development:
* APNU and AFC conspired to take both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker position, although tradition as practiced in most democracies and up to 2011 in Guyana is that the Speaker and Deputy Speaker comes from both sides of the National Assembly. In the 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th Parliament, the PPP/C enjoyed a significant majority in Parliament, but the Deputy Speaker came from the PNC.
* The Opposition attempted to change the composition of the Management Committee which had equal representation for the Government and the Opposition sides with the Speaker as the Chair. The Opposition wanted to change the composition so that they would have 6 members and the Government 4, with the Speaker as Chair. This would have given them a 7 to 4 advantage.
* They changed the numbers and the compositional make-up of Special Select Committees and took the Chair position for all Special Select Committees and Standing Committees, except for a few that they did not want to take for strategic reasons.
* They changed the composition of the Standing Sector Committees
* The Opposition often change the dates set for Parliament by the Government
* Non-Attendance and boycotting Special Select Committees has been used to delay the passage of bills
* The reckless suspension of the Standing Orders has led to a Parliament that seems to function without direction
* Arbitrary cutting of budget estimates that has resulted in almost $90B cut from the 2012, 2013 and 2014 budgets. These cuts hurt ordinary Guyanese citizens in order for people to turn against the Government. For what purpose would the Opposition cut the budgets for Cunhia Canal, the Amerindian Development Fund, Amerindian Land Demarcation Programme, One Laptop Per Family, Rural Electrification Program, Solar Panel for Amerindian Families, the Specialty Hospital, the Amaila Hydroelectric Project etc.?
* The Opposition blocked support for the Amaila Hydroelectricity Project driving away the investors. How could this serve Guyana, when we all accept that investment in Guyana is vital and that cheaper electricity is an imperative for accelerated development?
* The use of their one-seat majority to deny petition rights of citizens and groups. During the 6 to the 9th Parliament, the Parliament received and presented petitions from various persons and groups, many of which were critical of the Government. But the Government did not prevent the petition from moving forward, as they were constitutional rights conferred on our people. In the 10th Parliament, APNU and AFC have combined to stop petitions from citizens and groups because APNU and AFC did not like the contents of the petition. The Parliament was used to shamelessly deny freedom of speech to citizens.
* APNU and AFC have used the Parliament to promulgate bills and resolutions that clearly were unconstitutional and they knew that they were acting in contravention of the constitution. The Speaker has aided and abetted this abuse of Parliament.
* They have prevented the passage of critical legislations just to spite the Government. The non-passage of the Anti-money laundering bill by having the bill languished in the Special Select Committee placed Guyana under threat for international blacklisting. But they have blocked other bills such as the Firearm Amendment Bill which sought to prevent illegal entry of firearms and ammunition into Guyana and the Hydroelectricity Bill.
These are just a few examples of how dysfunctional the 10th Parliament has become. I could list pages of other examples to show the absolute abuse of Parliament and how APNU and AFC with the aid of the Speaker have sought to reverse the participatory democracy the PPP/C built in the 6th to the 9th Parliament.
It would be an abrogation of his duty should the President refuse to act to remedy the assault on Parliamentary Democracy. In a calm, mature and compromising way, the President sought to have all stakeholders to play their part for a way forward. He appealed that stakeholders should cooperate and compromise, short of which he would be forced to use his constitutional authority to perform his duty. President Donald Ramotar urged that he not be forced to resort to his constitutional obligation to either prorogue or dissolve Parliament to end the impasse that presently stands as a barrier to development.