THE brawl — for that is what it was — in the National Assembly on Monday, 11th December, should see some Members of Parliament (MPs) downing their heads in shame at the dishonour they brought to the Honourable House.
History has taught that honourable behaviour requires respecting rules, laws, and exhibiting propriety and decorum. If some may have acceded to serve in the nation’s highest decision-making forum and per chance earlier socialisation did not place premium on these values, at least by now society expected they be cultivated, particularly when in the House.
The events of Monday have been witnessed by all and sundry, at home and abroad. And while the unbecoming may think it represented their finest political moment, they have brought dishonour if not to themselves to the House, an important branch of government. Standing Orders in the National Assembly are made by the MPs to govern their conduct in the House. To make rules and subsequently decide they will be respected because it could make a political statement does not justify the disrespect.
Efforts to justify People’s Progressive Party/Civic (PPP/C) MP Juan Edghill’s refusal to respect Speaker Dr. Barton Scotland’s ruling is not with merit. There can be no justification for refusing to respect the ruling of the Speaker and being supported by colleagues in doing likewise. The adamant refusal of MP Edghill to leave the chamber after ordered to do so by the Speaker set in train the brawl that ensued, and the MP must take full responsibility for what happened thereafter. What is even more conflicting in addition to being a politician, he is known as a man of the cloth and better was expected, especially given that his faith promotes the value of leadership by example.
To assume the Speaker should have handled the issue differently such as allowing Edghill to speak is beside the point. The crux of the matter is that of the ruling and the refusal to conform, which was a challenge to the authority of the House and brought both the august body and MP into disrepute. Mr. Edghill is a MP and a participant in the business of the House. Being an elected member, does not grant or vest in him any authority or privilege to flout the rules and directives of the Speaker.
The Speaker, whether elected from the List of Representatives or selected from outside of that List, has been appointed in accordance with the Guyana Constitution. He is therefore vested with the authority to ensure the Standing Orders are respected, on every occasion, and by every member.
MP Edghill and PPP/C colleagues could have dealt differently with the apparent disagreement with the Speaker’s initial ruling on conformity to time allotment. Disagreement does not require being disagreeable, particularly among those expected to possess maturity and intelligence. After the Speaker’s initial ruling was ignored and challenged, he then ordered the MP to leave the chamber and not return for the session.
Respect for the Standing Orders should have seen the MP obeying the first ruling, then at the break the Chief Whip and Opposition Whip could have sought audience with the Speaker to address the problem. Opposition Whip Gail Teixeira, instead of providing leadership in finding a solution, encouraged the lawlessness, leaving reasonable minds to speculate whether MP Edghill’s actions were pre-planned to create the brawl.
It is uncanny that Leader of the Opposition Bharrat Jagdeo was MIA at the beginning, but appeared after the brawl had escalated and members of the Guyana Police Force were in the chamber, to thereafter pronounce that it was all the fault of the Speaker. As a former president, Mr. Jagdeo could have seized the opportunity to positively distinguish himself in de-escalating the conflict and help to salvage the reputation of the House and the unbecoming behaviour of his party’s colleagues. The view held by some that if the PPP/C is not in government, the party’s leadership would subvert and undermine governance is something of which to take note.
Mr. Edghill’s behaviour was totally uncalled for. It is hoped time will be spent attending to how unbecoming it was and on reflection embarrassment is not devoid of remorse. Monday 11th December was another dark day and a further slide into degeneracy by this 11th Parliament and the desecration of the title Honourable. Finally, the attempt to conflate Monday’s unbecoming conduct to that of the person who invaded the House dressed as Santa Claus is false equivalency.
The MPs’ behaviour represented disregard for the rules (Standing Orders) governing their conduct, diminished the authority of the Speaker presiding over the House, and undermined governance. The Santa Claus case was a prank (silly) by a non-Member of the House. Conflating the two skirts the seriousness of the brawl, the role of the legislature and the standards to which MPs must be held.
