The PNC refuses to accept the will of the people
Stabroek News
May 17, 2002
Dear Editor,
The Stabroek News (SN) editorial of Sunday, May 5 lacked balance and almost maliciously ignored salient, well-known facts. As a member of the PPP/C in Parliament, I am aware the PPP/C Government is not happy with the way Parliament functions today. But while Government has a major role to play, Parliament can only be a deliberative body if the Opposition also plays its role. The fact is the Opposition has focused its wrath on Government through extra-parliamentary means. This has not merely been since the 2001 elections, but indeed, since 1992. The clear intent on the part of the PNC as part of the Opposition is they are not content to find a positive and effective role as Opposition. The PNC's sole objective is to take political control and power, by any means whatsoever. It is an objective that fuels statements such as one made by Mr Desmond Hoyte himself soon after the 2001 elections asserting the PNC's intention to make Guyana ungovernable. In spite of all efforts on the part of Government, the PNC refuses to accept the will of the people. This is the backdrop against which the PPP/C has had to govern since 1992. Trust is a two-way street.
No one ought to doubt the fact the PPP/C won the last election. Thus, the PPP/C Government won a mandate from the people to govern, including setting the legislative agenda. The Standing Orders of Parliament also give the Government this authority. In any case, this is standard in every democratic country in the world. The Government sets the legislative agenda. Unless I am mistaken, I do not sense the SN questioning the right of the PPP/C Government having this authority.
The idea of having a Parliamentary Management Committee (PMC) came out of discussions for constitutional reform and also out of the dialogue. While I am not opposed to a PMC, I am certain the PPP/C is not willing to concede authority for setting the legislative agenda to the PNC or the combined Opposition. The PPP/C would be doing precisely so if it agrees to equal representation of the Government and Opposition on the PMC. And any such agreement on the part of the PPP/C would mean usurping the powers of Government as set out in the Standing Orders. Good governance demands systems that do not deliberately or otherwise lead to deadlocks. A 50-50 PMC is a recipe for deadlocks. Knowingly walking into such a situation is irresponsible.
Our history must inform us as we make decisions that would affect us in the future. As Government, we are dealing with an Opposition that has shown its proclivity for creating deadlocks and that has refused to compromise.
Compromise for the Opposition, and it appears SN, is taken as Government giving in to all Opposition demands. SN claims if there is a deadlock on the PMC, there is nothing to stop the Government from moving forward with its agenda since the Standing Orders provide Government with a mandate to carry on. This is technically true. However, I doubt SN was being merely naive. I am certain SN would also join with the Opposition in denouncing the PPP/C Government as being arbitrary when the Government chooses to exercise this option without the agreement of the PMC. Should there be a deadlock and the PPP/C exercises its option to act contrary to agreement with the PMC, the cry from the PNC would be we are ignoring a Parliamentary body and we are lawless. This is not mere conjecture. This is not just out of our distrust of the PNC. We see this reality every day.
The present impasse is a case in point. During the discussions on constitutional reforms, we argued that the powers of the President ought not to be diminished when it comes to appointments of Service Commission members. It was, however, demanded that a Parliamentary Committee make the appointments of certain members. Although sensing the dangers, we agreed in the spirit of encouraging an environment of trust. The result of this trust is we are deadlocked in terms of putting together the Parliamentary Committee and the service commissions cannot be appointed. This has caused untold damage to our country. if we were to proceed to appoint the Special Appointments Committee of Parliament without the Opposition and then cause the Service Commissions to be appointed, the Opposition would scream foul. SN would castigate us for not waiting and for not trying harder to get the Opposition's support. SN would accuse us of acting hastily and arbitrarily. The whole burden is placed on the shoulders of Government. This is a total lack of appreciation of what makes a democratic society work. Both the Government and Opposition must shoulder burdens.
Parliament met on Thurs-day because the PPP/C Government had decided to proceed with its business. I surely hope SN would support the Government as it attempts to do exactly what SN proposed - in the face of deadlock exercise your mandate as the Government.
The PPP/C is strong in its support for Members Day and for questions and motions to be placed by the Opposition. This is a position it has held prior to 1992 and for all of the period 1964-1992, the PNC did nothing to promote such a Parliament. Indeed, the PNC totally destroyed the deliberative nature of Guyana's Parliament. Since the Eighth Parliament was convened, the PNC has submitted two questions for the National Assembly. One of these was placed on the legislative agenda. It is also true that the GAP/WPA member, the Honourable Sheila Holder has submitted a question with many subparts. As a Member of Parliament, I regret the Honourable Member's question has not been placed on the agenda before. However, an explanation was given and I do not want to delve too deeply into the reason, a reason that has nothing to do with Government's intention. Even without the PMC, however, the PPP/C has agreed to dedicate one day each month for Members' questions and motions.
If SN is serious that a deadlock on the PMC would not affect the agenda of Government in Parliament, and if SN is so convinced the PPP/C does not want Parliament to be a deliberative body, how then does it think the PMC with equal membership would become the ideal deliberative body you desire? All the PPP/C has to do is ignore PMC according to the SN formula - each time there is a deadlock, the PPP/C government is free to ignore the PMC because it's the Government's mandate. This is silly since you must know that once we establish the PMC, we couldn't so easily ignore it without providing another excuse for extra-parliamentary actions by the PNC. The advisory bodies we establish become all-powerful and usurp powers of the Government. Experience has taught us this.
SN called on the PPP/C to work through differences with the Opposition. I hope SN also holds the view the Opposition must work through differences with the Government. Our history as a Government has been one where the Opposition has shown little inclination to work with the Government.
The extra-Parliamentary activities of the PNC are well known to everyone. We have all kinds of extra-parliamentary campaigns, including slow fire, mo' fire, innocent people being beaten, etc. We are well aware of the PNC's intention to make unreasonable demands on us for them to have excuses to create instability.
Surely I believe we all need to trust each other more. But it would be foolish on our part to have unequivocal trust in the PNC given its history of dealing with the PPP during the 1964-1992 era and since 1992.
No country could conceivably move instantaneously to the ideal Parliament SN describes given the pre-1992 Guyana circumstances where Parliament was a body at the whims and fancies of the PNC, where the Opposition had no voice, where the Leader of the Opposition then was not allowed to speak, where the PNC since 1992 has taken to extra-parliamentary actions bringing untold suffering to the Guyanese people. Surely, you cannot be serious if you intended to compare the Eighth Parliament to any prior to 1992. It has to be an incremental approach. Maybe a PMC would add to the increased participation of the Opposition in national affairs. As a Member of Parliament I would welcome this. But I could not support any move to transform our Parliament to a state of paralysis. Some argue it is already, even without the PMC, in a state of paralysis. That is why it is important for the PPP/C to move on with its packed agenda and be less concerned about trying infinitely to get agreement with the PNC.
Our Parliament now at least is discussing ways of greater inclusion, something unthinkable prior to 1992. The Public Accounts Committee has been active since 1992. This is greater participation since any such committee could not function prior to 1992 due to the absence of national improvement. The Constitutional Reform process significantly involved the Opposition. In fact many of the working committees had more Opposition members not the Government. Even if we were to proceed now with the formula the PPP/C Government has proposed for all the Committees, this would be an advance over what we had before and provides another step in creating the ideal Parliament. One could argue these incremental improvements are too painstakingly slow, but it is moving in the right direction. Certainly, it is no excuse for us to halt the dialogue, a dialogue that could accelerate progress.
What is wrong then with starting with a composition where the PPP/C has a majority of one in keeping with its mandate? It is a start that would give us time to work with each other and learn to trust each other. But it is also SN that has suggested in an arrangement that leads to deadlock, the PPP/C could still ignore the PMC and use its majority to pass its bills anyway. The trouble with this formula is we provide an excuse for the Opposition to say the PMC is a useless body. As a PPP/C Member of Parliament I would rather have a PMC where we could seriously try to obtain consensus, without risking Parliament being thrown into paralysis. At least let us agree to move on now with the formula where the PPP/C retains its Parliamentary majority on the PMC and then review the functioning of the PMC at an agreed upon time.
We must find a reasonable way forward. A reasonable way cannot merely be the Government simply giving up its position. We accept responsibility and we accept we must show leadership. This does not mean we must be stupid.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Leslie Ramsammy MP