Denis Homepage
Archive
|
Emphasise the negative
December 23, 2001
By Denis Solomon
I CAN'T think what President Robinson had in mind when he asked for a written undertaking from members of Parliament to support their respective leaders.
Was he hoping that his task would be made easier by the last-minute (or rather, first-minute) defection of some unprincipled opportunist, drunk with the sight of power?
It is interesting how desperation has led to reliance by all concerned on the negative aspects of the situation.
The President is supposed to assure himself that someone has a majority in the House. He now seems to be reduced to assuring himself that no one has a minority.
Mr Manning "explained" the need to choose a Speaker before a Prime Minister by saying that the parties wanted to be sure that the Speaker would use his casting vote in favour of the status quo. I said in my Wednesday column that that was not only false, but was particularly inappropriate coming from Mr Manning, who has gone down in history as the only Prime Minister to attempt to fire a Speaker for lack of bias toward his party.
Both Mr Manning and Mr Panday, I said, wanted the very opposite—a Speaker who would be partial. This was not quite accurate. Obviously anyone seen as partial to the UNC would have been objected to by the PNM, and vice versa. I should have said that what each wanted was a Speaker who would not be partial to the other party. In other words, a negative qualification.
Which is why the two leading candidates were among the worst possible choices to preside over a serious Parliament—ie people with no parliamentary experience at all.
Another of my remarks in the Wednesday column was confirmed from an unexpected source. I said that if Speakers were really as impartial as they are supposed to be, any previous one would have done. But the reality was that all Speakers in the past had been chosen for their perceived bias toward the government, and the proof of it was the fact that no previous Speaker was being considered.
I certainly didn't expect confirmation from the horse's mouth. But lo and behold, on Wednesday the Guardian carried a report of a PNM official gloating at the appointment of Professor Max Richards, with the words "since our nominee will be Speaker, we'll be in control of the House of Representatives, not the UNC". The PNM issued a release saying that the statement was unauthorised (not that the report was untrue). The release then went on to admit openly that previous Speakers had been seen as partisan.
In the Guardian's words: "The release added that the PNM's opposition to the appointment of previous Speakers was based on grounds that partisanship should not govern the conduct of the House of Representatives". So the correction was just as disgraceful as the statement it disowned. It is an admission by the PNM that not only were the UNC-appointed Speakers biased, but the PNM's were too.
Whoever the President appoints (if he appoints anyone) the whole mess will be unworkable. The agreement between the parties to "build consensus at parliamentary rather than executive level" means nothing.
It is simply an admission of intransigence on both sides—a fancy way of saying, "No coalition Cabinet, and let Parliament take care of itself."
Just as the phrase "in his absolute discretion" has been seized on by the politicians and the press to give the public false reassurance that the President can do something to resolve the crisis, the phrases "status quo", used by Manning, and "objectivity", used by Professor Richards, are intended to suggest that a hung Parliament and a randomly-appointed executive are workable propositions. Free voting has been ruled out.
So what is the "status quo" when a Bill receives 18 votes for and 18 against? Obviously, it can only mean that the Speaker must vote against it. Which in turn means that all legislation will be defeated unless it is unanimous. No laws will be passed that are worth disagreeing about. And those are precisely the ones that justify the existence of a Parliament.
Professor Richards elaborated on his definition of "objectivity" by saying that he would treat everything "on its merits". But who is he, an outsider, to decide on the merits of the legislative proposals of the people's elected representatives? His job is to ensure the orderly conduct of the House's affairs, not to pass judgment on the subjects of its deliberations.
The Guardian story in which he proclaimed his "objectivity" was headlined "Prof Max vows to be his own man". Someone should tell him he is not supposed to be his own man, but Parliament's man. And since an 18-18 Parliament will be inherently unworkable, his task, like the President's, is impossible.
I will not accuse Professor Richards, as I have accused Dr Rupert Griffith, of simply looking for a "wuk".
But other than that, only ignorance, and hopeless dreams of being the man or woman of the moment, could have induced anyone to accept the job in the present circumstances.
Copyright © 2004 Denis Solomon
|
|