As the Ninth Parliament of the republic opened last Monday,
there was an absence of decorum in parts of the proceedings.
The lowest point was when Leader of the Opposition Basdeo
Panday chose to wipe his hands with his handkerchief after
shaking Prime Minister Manning’s hand, just before the
start of the ceremony.
The cut and thrust of politics is one thing; the loss of civility
is another.
It subsequently emerged that the UNC caucus had also taken
a decision to refuse shaking the hand of the Speaker, Barendra
Sinanan, who was re-elected unopposed.
With the exception of Winston Peters (Mayaro) and Nizam Baksh
(Naparima), all of the UNC MPs did not shake the Speaker’s
hand after they took their oath of allegiance.
Political points
This was a means of using the high ceremony of the occasion
to score political points by embarrassing the Speaker.
However, as in 2001 when the same thing was done to Rupert
Griffith, the only people who were shown in a poor light were
those who chose not to shake the Speaker’s hand.
Our society has to be careful, insofar as the use of incivility
by some of our parliamentarians as a means of registering
an objection threatens to bring the holders of high office
into public odium and ridicule.
The use of the ceremonial opening of Parliament to file a
motion for the adjournment of the House of Representatives
on a definite matter of urgent public importance was an attempt
that registered a political point, but it was out of order
by virtue of the manner in which it was done.
Opposition Chief Whip Ramesh Lawrence Maharaj delivered a
letter to the Speaker as soon as he took his oath of allegiance.
This was done in lieu of shaking the Speaker’s hand.
However, it was clear the Speaker would have no time to read
the letter; which meant the matter could not be considered.
The emergence of a supplemental Order Paper, which was not
given to the Opposition members in the House of Representatives,
was also quite controversial.
This led to a subsequent exchange between the Speaker and
the Opposition Chief Whip. If there was uneven distribution
of the Order Paper, then that cannot be deemed to be proper
parliamentary practice.
The other controversy related to the issue of whether or not
there was consultation on the re-appointment of Speaker Sinanan.
Prime Minister Manning told the House that because it was
a re-appointment there was no need for consultation.
References have also been made to the fact that Basdeo Panday
did not engage in any consultation when the UNC majority elected
Hector McClean in 1995 and Rupert Griffith in 2001 (both of
whom were defeated candidates) to the post of Speaker.
The tit-for-tat argument does not get to the source of this
issue. In many developing countries of the Commonwealth, the
office of Speaker is regarded as an extension of the patronage
that the executive can dispense.
This is unfortunate, as it makes the office of Speaker into
a partisan one, unlike what is intended at Westminster.
Has failed
We happen to operate a Whitehall version of the office of
Speaker, which permits the holder of the office to come from
among either the elected members or from outside the House.
The issue of consultation is designed to soften the blow of
partisanship associated with a majority election by those
who control the House.
At the best of times, consultation has failed, as was the
case with Prof Max Richards, who was supposed to have been
made the Speaker of the 18–18 tied Parliament after the
2001 general election.
The consultation regarding him was a by-product of the Crowne
Plaza Accord, which was subsequently set aside by the UNC.
The UNC MPs challenged Richards’ nomination and he did
not become Speaker.
As fate would have it, he was subsequently elevated to the
higher office of president of the republic in 2003.
The office of Speaker also has been used in Commonwealth Caribbean
Parliaments as a means of keeping certain MPs out of the Cabinet.
Became hostile
In Barbados in 1976, Prime Minister Tom Adams did not want
Burton Hinds in his Cabinet, and offered him the post of Speaker
instead.
In 1986 in Trinidad and Tobago, ANR Robinson did not want
Nizam Mohammed in his Cabinet, and offered him the post of
Speaker instead.
The ability of our Parliaments in the region to elect only
Speakers who are in some form or fashion sympathetic to the
party in power is a function of the difficulties that a government
can face if the Speaker becomes hostile to the government
itself.
In Trinidad and Tobago, this has happened before. During the
1986–’91 Parliament, there was a period of time
when Nizam Mohammed was hostile to the NAR Government, and
during the 1991-’95 Parliament, Occah Seapaul became
hostile to the PNM Government.
In both cases, the parliamentary life of the government became
difficult.
The complaints about last Monday’s opening of Parliament
have begged many questions about the need for constitutional
reform in favour of a presidential model.
We have become so accustomed to the dominance of Parliament
by the executive that we cringe at the discomforts that were
created last week and during the period leading up to the
opening of Parliament.
If Parliament were able to convene itself without the fiat
of the executive, things may be different.
If an executive president could come to Parliament to deliver
a state of the union address, about which there would be debate
in Parliament and subsequent legislative action, things could
be different.
Are we ready for these reforms, or do we prefer to continue
complaining about the shortcomings of the parliamentary system
because of a fear of change, and thereby leaving things the
way they are?
