IN recent years, the international parliamentary community has increasingly articulated common democratic norms and standards relating to parliaments. The Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) adopted the Universal Declaration on Democracy in 1997, which in addition to outlining the key elements of democracies, notes that democracy “requires the existence of representative institutions at all levels and, in particular, a Parliament in which all components of society are represented and which has the requisite powers and means to express the will of the people by legislating and overseeing government action.” For parliaments and parliamentarians to meet these democratic standards, it is essential that parliaments build and maintain the public’s trust by conducting their work according to high standards of ethics

A nation’s Parliament is its law-making institution, comprising persons elected by national vote. This gives these men and women the authority to not only represent the collective interests/concerns of the people, but also to make decisions in their name. Thus, the description — representatives of the people.

Of course, such an environment has to have a body of laws which govern and guide its every procedure, particularly the conduct of its elected members. Overseeing this important state organ is the Speaker in whose person resides full authority.
This brief, immediately describes an environment that is to be treated with the utmost decorum and respect, because of the nature of the business that is discussed within its august chambers – the nation’s business.

Thursday, November 2, 2017 will long be remembered when this utmost respect for the national Parliament was completely thrown out the windows of its sacrosanct chambers, by an opposition political party that in less than an hour ripped to shreds, every protocol governing the observance of parliamentary decorum to be applied during the President’s address, in those hallowed chambers to the nation.

This has become an annual feature of the nation’s President, David Arthur Granger at which forum, he gives a brief on the nation’s achievements, while outlining its legislative agenda. It must be reiterated that President Granger has addressed the Nationally Assembly more times than any other president.
It is no different to what is traditionally known as the Throne Speech, delivered personally to the British Parliament by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth.

Such an occasion is absolutely very important, in whatever country, as it brings to the presence of the elected House, the Head of State/Government who is expected to outline government’s policy. In Guyana’s instance, in accordance with the nation’s constitution, the House becomes The Parliament only with the presence of the President.

Protocol demands, that irrespective of the political issues of the day, the Head of State/Government as presently embodied in the President of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, must be accorded full respect, and honour when he is before the nation’s Parliament. But yesterday’s behaviour, by the opposition People’s Progressive Party/Civic(PPP/C), totally ignored such a time-honoured principle, and descended into the lowest of behavioural pits, in so far as parliamentary conduct is concerned.

Notwithstanding this opposition party’s disagreement with the President, on the issue of his selection of the Chairman of the Guyana Elections Commission(GECOM), we hold the view that such conduct stunk in smell; was blatantly disrespectful to the person and dignity of the President, nationally offensive, and has brought Guyana’s Parliament to its lowest level of national shame. All in the presence of the diplomatic corps and other dignitaries present.
Observing a former President, Bharat Jagdeo’s face, as it bobbed in and out from behind a placard, has to be condemned in the strongest language possible.

But we should look at the role of the Speaker of the National Assembly. He is the referee in the House, in whose repose rests full authority to regulate the affairs of the National Assembly, Parliament, as it was during the period of the presidential address. This includes the conduct of parliamentarians.

That the Speaker was magnanimous needs no repetition. He was over tolerant, but we see this in the spirit and letter of the coalition Government’s commitment to democracy. Even if in the latter mode, of the right to expression, yet he ought to have intervened within a short while of the commencement of the ruckus, stamping his authority, thus allowing the President to be able to address the Parliament in the manner that such occasion demanded.

This was great provocation, and we salute President Granger for the dignity and resoluteness displayed in the face of “yard fowl” behaviour that could have only been inflicted in those hallowed chambers by none other than Bharrat Jagdeo and cohorts.