THE parliamentary debate of the 2016 budget has once again confirmed what many Guyanese have come to dislike about our political process —- the political polarization.The debate began with instant attacks on the integrity of the Government, and ended with the now predictable walkout of the Opposition Members of Parliament before the last speaker on the Government side has made his presentation. That that speaker was until recently a leading member of the other side cannot be lost on observers of our political process.

A budget debate is meant to be a source of enlightened discourse and critique of the larger economic vision of the Government and the line items it proposes in pursuit of that vision. The Opposition is expected to challenge where such is necessary, and support those items which it feels are consistent with its own vision and the overall good of the country. The Government, on the other hand, is expected to explain its vision and justify its line items. In the end, the country should benefit from the exchanges.

Alas, this has not been the case for a long time, but the situation has gotten worse with each succeeding budget presentation. The number of times the Speaker had to rebuke members is shocking, given their longevity in Parliament; and they cannot plead ignorance of parliamentary rules and procedures. It is clear that the Parliament in general and the budget debates in particular have now become sources of political obscenity.

One commentator has correctly observed that parliamentarians treat the Parliament as an extension of street corner meetings.

This problem is not confined to the Parliament, it is part of our elite political culture: Our politicians simply do not respect our institutions and by extension our people. Parliamentarians are being paid by taxpayers to do their jobs. Compared to the wages of most tax-payers, these politicians are paid very well for doing a part-time job, and it is a second job for most of them. Ours is a very part-time Parliament in which our lawmakers are not required to work most of the year. Yet, when they are required to work, the nation is treated to these heavy doses of political vulgarity that pass for debates.

We live in a polarized society — a polarization that is grounded in our history — and the behaviour of our political representatives compound that polarization. In some regards, the polarization at the top (among our leaders) far outstrips the polarization among the people. It is not out of place to conclude that the quality of discourse among our Members of Parliament and the political behaviour of our leaderships do not necessarily reflect the culture of the society at large. This is a sad commentary on our very independence, for we did not struggle to throw out the colonizers only to replace colonial decadence with a new form of so-called “independence decadence.”
It is high time our leaders on both sides of the political divide be made aware of the damage they continue to inflict on the collective psyche. Despite the crushing blows of slavery, indentureship and colonialism, our people have emerged with a sense of dignity, and they have always cherished that dignity. So it is most debilitating to witness the people we elect behave as if they are historical enemies who have no regard for the rest of us.

Politics is reputedly a blood sport in which the enemy must be crushed. We reject that notion. Those who, for centuries, have had to endure the hurt of oppression cannot, and should not, treat the people’s business and institutions as mediums of hatefulness. We deserve better than that. We need in Guyana a new political awakening that seeks to restore a politics of representation that speak to the interests and concerns of the citizenry, and not to the narrow interests of the party and its leaders.

But that awakening has to arise from demands from the bottom. It is the people who would have to push back against the excesses of the politicians. It is the people who must rebuke their leaders when they transform the Parliament into a haven of disrespect. It is the people who must ask the leaders to explain how constant walkouts from Parliament advance representation of their interests. It is the people who must proclaim that they elect leaders, and not gods. Enough is surely enough.