PARLIAMENT (the legislative branch of government) continues to be the nation’s highest decision-making forum. It comprises representatives from each of the ten administrative regions and those at the national level in what is referred to as the national top-up list. It is the forum that makes decisions that are national in character; engages in debates; and votes and approves the national programme for spending, i.e. the national budget

Included in its activities is provision for the establishment of sectoral and ad-hoc committees geared towards addressing issues in a more detailed manner.

These hallowed halls are considered sacred. In 1926, when Caribbean labour leaders held their first conference, the Parliament Building was chosen because of its significance and the focus of the labour leaders at that time. It was a time when Caribbean people were agitating for self-determination, which included Caribbean integration, universal adult suffrage, and internal self-government. In holding the meeting there, the leaders were signalling to the colonial political directorate that the masses have within their midst persons capable of sitting in this branch of government and representing their interests.

With voting at that time being the prerogative of the land-owning and educated classes, it meant the majority were excluded from participating in this vital act, and in having an input in determining their future.

Universal adult suffrage was achieved in Guyana in time for the 1953 elections, and its achievement was at the expense of blood, sweat and tears. A vote is an expression of an individual’s choice of representative, or position on given issues. By virtue of this exercise, one accordingly uses one’s power to approve or disapprove of a policy or person as representative. Voting is a right under our law; thus, when a vote is cast in electing party/representative of choice, it follows that representation will be had and valued.

While the parliament comprises a government and opposition side, the average person would admit that, in voting for their representative of choice, it does not mean that that representative/party would ignore any good suggestion/proposal from the other side. There is a general view among Guyanese that the politicians should, and could, work together.

When elections are over, apart from the leaders, the aggrieved and the few diehards who feel things must either go their way or be sent along the proverbial highway, people basically return to a life of normalcy wherein partisan politics is not a lurking/divisive force in their daily activities.

Were one to take a survey in any communal area (work, social event or market), it is not far-fetched to conclude that there would be found cordial interactions among persons who had voted for different political parties. It is this sense of camaraderie that generally informs day-to-day living and allows for nation-building, since it creates potential for positive relations that can lead to the flow of ideas and the nurturing of respect for each other. With this comes realisation that there can be spirited and robust debates, including disagreements, without the compulsion to feel it necessary to be disagreeable. It is not unreasonable of the masses to desire importation/adaptation of constructive deliberations as a norm in Parliament and among elected officials. This, however, does not mean that the principle of accountability which underpins good governance should be ignored. The desire is out of recognition and appreciation that Parliament was never designed to be an arena for bull fighting, scalping, and bitterness.

Parliament is a forum where ideas are expected to surface, spirited debates follow, and decisions taken through votes. Also factored in is that the programme of the government (executive branch) will not only be laid there, but will be examined and critiqued by members of the house and the interested public, and of which the government will act objectively. And given that the constitution allows for any member to bring a bill, motion or question, it also means the opposition is allowed avenue to be proactive in shaping the nation’s agenda.

Yet, the Parliament has not been without its weaknesses and lack of direction for growth, in keeping with societal changes — domestic and foreign.

The Commonwealth Secretariat’s Senior Parliamentary Staff Advisor Sir Michael Davies’s 2005 Report on our parliamentary system may be worthy of examination at this time. Outside of recommendations for development, the report included comparative analysis in the frequency of sittings and opportunities given to the opposition to bring motions and issues to the House during the periods of the PNC and PPP governments. The study found that, rather than improvement shown in these areas, the country was regressing. For this regression to be halted, it requires that both sides of the House bring about the change. It may be important, in this 50th year as an independent nation, to revisit the Davies Report and use it as a catalyst to strengthen our parliamentary democracy and aspiration to become One People, One Nation, with One Destiny.