THE RANCOR AND QUALITY OF PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES

BY MICHAEL YOUNGE
PARLIAMENT has a rich history and culture of having some of the best and most influential debaters since the period of the National Legislative Council in 1947 and then the National Assembly May 1966. These debaters used the skill of language to jab at their political opponents.

It was the very sharp, precise and colourful oratory skills of former President of Guyana, the late Dr Cheddi Jagan that won him the spotlight whenever he stood to speak in the National Assembly. His concern about the normal man and the issues that he brought to the fore transcended race, class, and religion. Dr Jagan’s legacy was rich with many moments when he rallied against his opponents while in opposition or in Government.

Similarly, the same could be said of former Prime Minister Forbes Burnham who, as history records it, was a man with the spice in his mouth and the intellect to deliver the necessary oratory blows, sometimes too much and unjustified, to his fellow comrades in political and parliamentary realms.
Together, they led scholars, professionals, and the ordinary parliamentarians in debates that would redefine the concept of what it really means to engage one anther in sound, factual, concise, politically-correct, moral and classy debates in Parliament.

There were many policy disagreements and linguistical arguments among parliamentarians during the famous 1970s, 1980s and early 1990s. These fights about policy and excess continued throughout the 2000s where it slowly started taking a deep dip or plummet into an undesirable path. This trend continued from the period 2015 to a new low that saw the standards that were not good, morally-unsound, politically-inapt, unparliamentary in nature creeping its way into what could be described as ‘the most troubling period of parliamentary life’.
Now fast forward to the 12th Parliament.

These parliamentarians, mostly the opposition, are violating the rulings of its Speaker, its parliamentary conduct, rules and traditions with impunity. There is nothing parliamentary about the language or behaviours of its members.

Recall, it was Coalition MP, Geeta Chandan-Edmond who drew first blood at the Attorney-General, Anil Nandalall, who is without a child by saying, “I am a proud mother of two children. All the credit goes to my husband.” Then the homophobic insults hurled from the Opposition Leader, Joseph Harmon to Minister Kwame McCoy, “I have a lil boy for you.”
These behaviours must be condemned strongly by all right-thinking Guyanese and the parliamentarians should be sanctioned in the interest of the gains made by Guyana on the fronts of becoming an inclusive, tolerant and progressive multicultural society.

When we taught Parliament couldn’t descend anymore into the gutter, there were a number of insults hurled across the divide.
Truth be told, these debates are disappointing to say the least since they started. They have become too personal beyond the realms of what is acceptable parliamentary language and behaviour. There are little facts or empirical evidence. Only talking heads on the side of the APNU+AFC opposition.

And, the APNU+AFC opposition is wearing its heart on its sleeve for every one to see when it comes to the issues of racial insecurity and racial hostility in Guyana. It seems to see everything through its ‘racial and racist’ lenses. It cannot point to the issue by using welcomed examples of the ‘racism’ which it says the PPP Government employs, by using the trends in the empirical and factual data before it. Its talk about never ending discrimination is like ‘throwing water on ducks back’ without the cases and evidence. Where are the facts? Where is the evidence?

Consequently, when the APNU/AFC Government was in office, it had the opportunity to right everything it complained about by commissioning studies, COIs, reports but it didn’t. It would be wise if the opposition didn’t accuse the PPP/C of this heinous and most unfortunate acts during the debates because it is embarrassing to them even though there may be acts taking place.

Finally, the debates can still be uplifting and inspiring for all if they are delivered with the truth and conviction, facts and the element of political surprise. But there is no need for the level of hate, crassness, idiotic flares and the parliamentary misgivings that are taking place now. Go back to the days of Cheddi Jagan and Forbes Burnham and try hard to emulate them. Better must come over the next few days.

SHARE THIS ARTICLE :
Facebook
Twitter
WhatsApp
All our printed editions are available online
emblem3
Subscribe to the Guyana Chronicle.
Sign up to receive news and updates.
We respect your privacy.