THERE can be no acceptable excuse of inexcusable deportment, particularly from those entrusted the privilege to serve the people. The People’s Progressive Party/Civic’s (PPP/C) attempt to bring its continuous politicking to the National Assembly against the appointment of the GECOM Chairman, even as society awaits the High Court’s decision to the party’s challenge, can find no meritorious explanation. Neither is there acceptability in the claim made on Tuesday by Member of Parliament, Anil Nandlall, that the party’s placard-protest and attitude in the House reflected precedents.

Society expects there will be dissent in the House between Members and the Speaker, or one side against the other. The National Assembly is the place where diverse and competing views and interests will contend and ipso facto conflict and dissent will flow. In same measure society expects decorum will not flee the House and members conduct themselves in a manner befitting the traditional prefix of Honourable.

To seek to accept or impress on society that previously a party, group, member or side may have acted improperly should not become the standard to depart from a practice shunned. Irrespective of the side that engaged in impropriety, it brings disrepute to the august House and is unbecoming of those afforded the privilege to serve in it.

Dissent does not have to be debasing. Disagreeing does not require being disagreeable. Parliamentary immunity does not mean abandonment of decorum. The days where dissent requires nimbleness and understanding of language, particularly fallacies, should not be seen as obsolete. English still remains the official language and there is enough within its construct to get one’s point over, elevating the bar. The beauty of language and meaning is never learnt or appreciated, equally as subtleties and sarcasm do not require lowering the bar.

It requires a skillful speaker, understanding the nuances of the language, to get his or her point across, including inflicting a verbal power bunch. It is the absence of the capacity to articulate at this level that has been responsible for the absence of decorum in the august house. This is a reality that needs to be taken note of and recognition attended to the fact that being less than honourble lays bare the level of ability to articulate the spoken word.
Repeatedly in this 11th Parliament, Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland has been imploring a change of approach. To society’s dismay it seems as though his subtle, and dare it be said at times sarcastic, prodding is eluding those to whom he addressed. Responses for the most part have been akin to throwing water on duck’s back–just glides off as the duck continues to waddle along.

What is markedly strange and somewhat disappointing is that the modern parliament has within, members who are more certificated than their predecessors yet decorum, language and otherwise, have fallen short. Where society is churning out students with certifications absent the ability to comprehend and apply basic rudiments to the task, such deficiency is categorised as functional illiteracy. There is no intent to categorise what could be ascribed to the attitude some members of the House are guilty of. However, it is hoped that the ability to self-critique, desire for growth and development, and being mindful of the environment, role and responsibility will necessitate clinical review and correction. Name calling has always been ascribed to the inability to clearly articulate one’s views. The tendency to label and demean is never considered progressive and respecting, be it to self or others.

The days of referring to others as “erstwhile member or opponent” are not outdated, though ignored. Narrowness of vocabulary in the days of yore was discouraged and seen as unbefitting of the House. This still holds true today. Debating was a craft, not only to impress supporters as to knowledge of the issue in focus, but also to convince opponents and observers. This craft remains relevant in the 21st century legislature, though not widely developed and practiced.

Honourable Members took serious their role as models to society, including setting examples for younger generation, and up and coming politicians. This is not to say there were not incidents, though isolated, where decorum fled, but what kept the illustrious reputation of the august body was widespread intolerance for such by fellow members and society. The House has always been seen as an elite club, given its exclusivity in term of representatives to population size, i.e. 65 members to 770, 000 plus citizens. Traditionally, members zealously guarded its reputation, their ascendancy, privilege to serve and acting accordingly. The National Assembly needs to return to its nobleness and members, without exception, bear the deportment befitting such.