While there is so much political chatter buzzing around us, I believe that this could be a good time to find out if we know what we are talking about. This could be very instructive particularly on matters concerning the way the House is conducted; how representative government is expressed; the role of the Speaker; and the role of the Leader of the Opposition – because therein lies the basic features of our parliamentary democracy. The question is whether or not the things we are doing could, by any stretch of the imagination, be accurately considered parliamentary democracy. Surely we must have adopted the bare bones of this concept from the West minster system.
Now is the time to put meat on those bones and perhaps we should start with the House of Assembly and look at what happens there and how it happens. The question is primarily whether its procedures are organized or whether they are haphazard and vary with the colour of the Speaker’s dress. In the parliamentary system the purpose of the House of Assembly is to allow persons elected by the populace to speak on their behalf since everybody cannot be there at the same time. These are the fundamental principles underpinning the system therefore the manner and extent to which they are applied is critical. Inherent in their application is the political mirror image of the people that apply them, as well as the level of political development that exists. There is no point in covering it up. In order to move on it must be shown for what it is.
Broadly speaking, when people talk about a meeting of the House they mean the interaction of Members of the Government; Members of the Opposition; and the Speaker. It is the atmosphere during the sitting that allows for the business of the House to be carried out properly. That is why there is a Speaker and Rules of Conduct/Procedure. The most important characteristic of a good Speaker is non-partisanship or the ability to tone down bias. Rulings in the Anguilla House of Assembly tend to show bias towards the Government. This is most obvious in the manner she handled the two incidents in which she had the Leader of the Opposition ejected. There is a serious role for the Leader of the Opposition to play. He has the right to rebut; reply; and to propose in as much time as it takes. The Speaker has no right to shut him up.
There are particular issues for this Speaker to consider when making her rulings, namely, the size of the House and secondly how she aspired to office. The common accepted view of democracy is that the majority rules. But there is the onus on the majority not to tyrannize or muzzle the minority. So when the Speaker acts as if to intimidate the Opposition by having the Leader ejected for petty reasons she is using the House for the benefit of her party. This destroys the opportunity for the Opposition to function, and to make matters worse an unelected official is preventing an elected representative of the people from performing his duty. This is subversive and wrong. The Speaker should consider that the Leader of the Opposition got there with the support of hundreds of voters while, on the other hand, she got there by piggy-backing. Unfortunately, when the results of “in-your-face” bias is combined with the drawbacks of a small House of Assembly the entire proceedings turn into a one-way street. That is not fair and is what we want the Speaker to understand and to act on accordingly.
The common and universally accepted view is that the Speaker is the custodian of the rules of the House and the guardian of the rights of all of its Members. This idea is not practiced here. Therefore there is a real urgent need to set our House in order before trying to walk a “tight rope” called Independence. Adjusting the problems of the numerical size of the House would make more sense. So before anything else we should have a constitution that calls for “members-at-large” with the intent that such additional members could bring a measure of individual thinking. Conceptually, if practiced with that view in mind it could be a counter-balance to the capability of Government to ride “rough-shod” over other members. Under the existing conditions there is little chance for dissent since everybody on the side of the Government is a Minister and will act on the principle of “collective responsibility” and for the personal reason of the higher salary. The impact of the additional “at-large-members” could be the catalyst for changing the atmosphere in the House and make the Speaker think twice before making biased rulings.
In mature Houses the real objective is a place to parley, discuss and deliberate rather than a place for the Speaker to oversee the will of the government. Yes! Size does matter! And it becomes obvious as you look at other Commonwealth countries with larger Houses that “backbenchers” often influence decisions and can cause difficulty even to the extent of embarrassing the government. But size is not all about numbers – it is how they are used. For example, in a small House the Government has a monopoly on the action. To break the monopoly a set of stringent rules strictly adhered to could make a difference. Voters, by looking more closely at the type of representative they send to the House, may provide a useful part of the groundwork for change. Representatives must be able to appreciate the “cut and thrust” of a good debate and throw off the yoke of confrontation that now pervades and stagnates the opportunity for improving proceedings in the House. Just imagine a debate where a member could stand in his place and put forward a reasoned and rational discourse on the prevailing issue, then think about the difference between that style and the “bound-to-win attitude” fostered by some people who had been thought to know better. Now quite disappointingly, because of their willingness to promote what is a “loosing cause”, they make us wonder about their motive and sincerity.
There is hope that the proper way of doing things will be revealed as more people become aware of these “short-comings” and begin to point them out. The actors in the system will come to grips with the fact that the manner in which we operate is still “barebones” and that it remains for us to find people who could better represent us with a touch of class. The real issue to be addressed is what are our constitutional needs and what is the best arrangement to provide for them without experiencing any further setbacks. Let us put some meat on these bones!
