Sometime ago, in a short but interesting debate, after the Constitutional Reform Commission came out with its Report, I had proposed the need for bicameralism in a new liberal democratic Guyana. An Upper House or a Second Chamber of our National Parliament, through its composition, will have reflected a wider sweep of participation from a larger set of interest groups. Their voices will be more reflective of a greater diversity of our nation, a diversity which must be catered for legislatively.
Many in our society who are competent, upright and with sound judgment of what is in the national interest, fear the rough and tumble of political campaigning and the mudslinging that goes with such campaigns. These persons are eminently suited for an Upper House, and will have brought with them experience and knowledge if only to temper the passions and errors which usually can and do emerge from the more politically confrontational Lower House as now exists.
In advocating my viewpoint and attempting to neutralize my opponents' criticisms, one of which was foolishly to argue that such Upper House members will be political barnacles and parasites who want power without wanting to fight for it; I had argued that "a diffusion of legislative power is the surest bulwark on which our democracy must rest. Power diffused expands the base for reason and cuts the ground of passion and ego."
I lost the debate. My colleagues across the Parliamentary divide and a whole lot more said an Upper House would be too expensive. My rebuttal that inclusive democracy has its price in dollars, which makes lots of sense, was not effective. I felt sad.
When on the afternoon of Monday 5th May, 2003 my comrade and learned friend Moses Nagamootoo handed me a copy of the "Communique", I felt real happy upon reading its sections dealing with Parliamentary and Constitutional Reforms.
The effect of the various Constitutional Commissions and the many Parliamentary Committees that are being put in place, will do exactly in my opinion what was being proposed to be the role and function of an Upper House. No one can doubt that the Constitutional Commissions will see a more expanded representation than that of the narrow partisan party interest which flourishes in our existing Parliament. And I hope no one treats them, as they had been called earlier, "political barnacles". No one can deny that the Parliamentary Committees will enhance scrutiny of the Executive, thus causing ill-informed and under-prepared Ministers and other officials to be real jittery.
My country needs more scrutiny of leadership in all institutions of government; and needs more of its peoples' voices to be listened to. The former leads to the best and most honest persons being the trustees and stewards of our assets, institutional and physical. The latter leads to a culture of participation and indulgence of more of the talents from more of our people, more of the time.
Both result in good governance and true enfranchisement of our people. And these two things, more than anything and everything else, are what motivated me and thousands of others who fought for a restoration of democracy in Guyana. Both ought to be the reason why many others must continue the never ending fight to ensure no retrogression and backsliding.
The other benefits to the workings of our Parliamentary system through the operationalisation of the Constitutional Commissions and the Parliamentary Committees will be far reaching indeed.
Parliamentary Committees have promoted bipartisan decision-making and more understanding across party lines. I have actually experienced this as a member in our Public Accounts Committee. The PPP/C members are forced to develop working relationships with PNC/R members if we want an agreeable outcome.
Moreover, I am certain that these Committees like the Commissions will engender a better appreciation of scrutiny within all organs of Government especially within Ministries.
I proudly state that, again, this has been my experience out of the Public Accounts Committee. Accounting officers as a consequence of Public Accounts Committee's scrutiny largely have tightened up in areas found wanting.
What I also was so happy about when I read the "Communique" was the emphasis put on the strengthening of the capacity of Parliament to fulfill functions of these Committees and Commissions. It is so obvious that a lack of resources will hamper the effectiveness of these Committees and Commissions.
Members of the Committees and Commissions will need skills and resources to perform. There will have to be better library facilities, internet services, a larger collection of up-to-date books, reports and journals, increases in emoluments and better conditions for Parliamentarians. So money will have to be spent just like if an Upper House were put into operation.
Moreover, these Committees and Commission will have powers to compel the production of documents so as to obtain information about Government's operations which otherwise may not be produced voluntarily. I can foresee copies of Government contracts being ordered by the Procurement Commission; information about Government appointments, and special salaries to some, by the Economic Services Committee; information on the criteria for recruitment and cultural provisioning of trainees in the Police Force and Army by the Disciplined Forces Commission.
I can foresee some members of the Executive, within the Office of the President and within Ministries, claiming immunity from disclosure on a variety of grounds such as national security, commercially sensitive matter, breach of negotiations, agreement, etc. Which I bet will give rise to a plethora of litigation to delimit how far this power to order can go and what should be the penalties for those who don't comply with production orders. Oh yes, it will be a new threshold of transparency and accountability!