Parliament
Editorial
Stabroek News
May 26, 2002
Further evidence of the gulf between the views of the PPP/C and those of the PNC/R on the matter of Parliament (among other things) came in the form of two letters published in our edition of May 17. One, written by Minister of Health Leslie Ramsammy was captioned, 'The PNC refuses to accept the will of the people,' [ please note: links provided by LOSP web site ] and the other by Mr Deryck Bernard was titled, 'No one has ever explained how the PNC/R can impose radical reform on the PPP/C.' The first was a challenge to a Sunday editorial concerning the parliamentary impasse, published on May 5, while the second responded to an editor's note appended to a letter by Minister Manzoor Nadir which had said that the PNC/R had never put forward a radical vision for reform.
Dr Ramsammy repeated the official line of the governing party, which is quite simply that in 2001 the PPP/C won a mandate from the people, and as such, therefore, the Government sets the legislative agenda. The motives of the PNC/R, he said, were to take political control by any means possible; the party was not content to find an effective role as an opposition. For his part, Mr Bernard denied that the PNC/R was interested in office through the back door, and said that his party had not been allowed to function as a traditional opposition. Parliament rarely met, questions to ministers were not put or answered, members' days were not held and ministers did not always answer questions in committee. Referring to the discussions in the Constitution Reform Commission, he wrote, "every move forward was like extracting bad teeth from a tough jaw"; there was objection to "every suspicion of radical change."
The PNC/R, of course, has only itself to blame for any perception that it is prepared to seek power by "any means possible." After the violent protests which followed the last two elections in particular, and the general atmosphere of physical insecurity which pervades the Indian community, it will be difficult for the major opposition party to convince the PPP/C constituency that its main intention is simply to have a Parliament and commissions which function "more fully," as Mr Bernard put it. Aside from all the ethical and other objections to the protests, the PNC/R needs to recognise that they have also represented an impediment to the party's case being addressed on its own merits.
And where Parliament is concerned the opposition in general (not just the PNC/R) does have a case. Dr Ramsammy wrote that the PPP/C was strong in support for members' days and that the Government had agreed to dedicate one day each month for members' questions and motions. This was the position it had held prior to 1992, he said, and for the period 1964-1992 the PNC/R had done nothing to promote such a Parliament. It is perfectly true that during the period the PNC/R was illegally in office it did nothing to promote such a Parliament, but that cannot be used as a justification for the PPP/C following suit. It has consistently publicised its commitment to democracy, and to bat away criticism by making comparisons with an undemocratic government is not helpful.
In addition, the offer by the administration of one day a month for members' questions and motions in Parliament is problematic. Even as things stand Wednesdays are set aside in the Standing Orders of the National Assembly (20 (2)) as the time when private members' business shall take precedence over Government business. So what the PPP/C is offering the Opposition, therefore, is less than that to which they are at least potentially entitled under the existing orders - orders which the Government has managed to bypass by the simple expedient of not summoning Parliament on a Wednesday. In fact, as Mr Bernard and others have rightly observed, Parliament meets all too infrequently in any case, and as such is little better than a rubber stamp.
It might be noted that this offer was made despite the continuing impasse on the proposed Parliamentary Management Committee (PMC), although this is precisely the kind of issue which would come within its purview. Even if that is not what the administration intended, it has served to reinforce the perception that the PPP/C is really not interested in a management committee, or in meaningful inclusiveness as applied to the National Assembly.
Dr Ramsammy maintained that good governance meant that systems should not lead to deadlock, which is what would happen if his party did not have the majority on the proposed PMC. Whether it can be regarded as systemic deadlock when two political entities do not often agree on anything, is perhaps debatable. In any event, the truth is that there can be no inclusiveness unless we have structures which allow genuine input from the opposition, and if that flirts with the possibility of gridlock from time to time, then so be it. In any case it takes a minimun of two to make an impasse, and the Minister cannot operate on the automatic premise that whenever there is a deadlock rectitude lies with the PPP/C.
The Minister of Health complained in relation to concessions that the whole burden "is placed on the shoulders of the Government. This is a total lack of appreciation of what makes a democratic society work. Both the Government and Opposition must shoulder burdens." The problem is, of course, that the Opposition is not in office and it has, therefore, no concessions to make. The burden does indeed lie with the Government to accede to the kind of adjustments which would, in Mr Bernard's words, represent a degree of inclusiveness.
At the bottom of the problem is the fact that the PPP/C feels that a majority won at election in this country gives it the right of control at all levels of administration as well as at all levels in Parliament. There is no acknowledgement that the lack of a uniform ethnic electoral base presents peculiar challenges to traditional Westminster-style democracy, and that there may need to be some structural changes to address those challenges.
The Government has not been faced with any very radical demands where reform of the system is concerned as yet, but it appears afraid of even the rather limited proposals in regard to parliamentary committees that have been put forward by the combined opposition, despite the fact that these in no way challenge its overall control of the National Assembly, and despite the fact that in the case of the PMC, the current Standing Orders would in no way be affected. Surely a more vibrant Parliament is not something of which a democratic Government should be leery.