Heading For Trouble
Peeping Tom
Kaieteur News
May 12, 2007
The PPP's stubborn, uncompromising attitude towards the opposition does not bode well for the future security of this country. Every time persons such as the Peeper work to open a door of accommodation for the opposition, the government almost immediately slams it shut.
I am saying this now and I want all the supporters of the PPP to think carefully about what I have to say. Their party is leading this nation along the path to instability and turmoil, something that I am sure all right-thinking Guyanese do not want.
The PPP is inflexible and unwilling to bend over to accommodate even the most sensible proposals made by the opposition in the National Assembly. The ultimate consequence of this is that the opposition will be left with no other alternative but to question the meaningfulness of its participation in the National Assembly.
When the PNCR makes up its mind to end its participation, then the supporters of that party will feel that there is simply no other alternative than to take to the streets. We all know what the implications are of such a decision, and the fear and trepidation that it causes to the supporters of the ruling party. We all know the effects on business, on the economy and on national security. We have gone down this route before and we are surely headed for trouble unless there is a serious change of attitude by the ruling party.
I say the ruling party, and not just the government, because the ruling party is represented in the National Assembly. The PPP therefore has the primary responsibility for ensuring political accommodation and compromise within that body. Even if there is a rift within the ruling party, this should not prevent the ruling party from opposing positions that it considers as inimical to the future of this country.
The main opposition, the PNCR, has long harboured concerns about the effectiveness of the National Assembly in allowing it to play a meaningful role in the running of the country. It was the Peeper who has in these columns consistently urged the opposition to utilise the many mechanisms within parliament, including the sector committees, the public accounts committee, motions and questions, and in so doing contribute to good governance in the country.
At first, the suggestion was shunned. But after the Alliance for Change (AFC) adopted a strategy similar to what the Peeper was proposing, the main opposition saw the sensibleness of my advice and changed its former ambivalent approach to the use of parliamentary procedures and mechanisms as a means of contributing to good governance.
No sooner did the new parliament convene, the PNCR moved a motion calling for a review of the National Development Strategy. This seemed to be an overture to the government and one intended to provide a platform of political cooperation within the parliament, something that the President had said would be one of the hallmarks of this term of office.
If the proposed review had taken place and both sides had found common ground on the economic question, it would have greatly improved relations between the government, the ruling party and the opposition, and would have removed a great deal of contentiousness from the national arena.
The PPP however was not prepared to even have a debate on this subject, and went ahead and killed the motion. The leader of the opposition did not abandon hope, however, and the next move of significance was during the passage of the VAT legislation when PNCR parliamentarian, Winston Murray, asked that a study be done about the effects of VAT. The ruling party also vetoed this, with ridiculous explanations coming from the government side.
The opposition continued to try to make use of the parliament to promote good governance. I was pleased that the PNCR had taken the Peeper's advice and began to take more seriously its role in the sector committees. Through this mechanism, they have exposed some things but they have not gone as far as I thought they would.
During one recent meeting with the Minister of Agriculture, the minister seemed very relaxed when addressing questions put to him by one of the sector committees. A good test of how good a sector committee is doing, is the degree to which they can make a minister or a top government official perspire during meetings. If the air-conditioning is turned up to its fullest and government officials are perspiring profusely, this is sure sign that the committee's questions are telling.
The use of questions have also exposed a great deal. It is through a question posed to a minister that the public now knows about the amount that Bernie Kerik would receive for consultancy services from the government. Had the opposition not placed this question before the House we may have never learnt what the former head of the New York Police Department (NYPD) would have earned in his position as an adviser on security issues.
While parliamentary mechanisms such as sector committees, motions and questions can make an impact, the government at the same time must be accommodating to the concerns of the opposition. It was disturbing to learn that just recently the government turned down a motion by the opposition to have a review of the entire tax system on the country, along with other proposals that are to my understanding well-meaning.
What is the opposition to read from this trend of rebuffs? If the PPP and the government are using their parliamentary majority to turn down every genuine attempt at rapprochement by the opposition, what option is left to the opposition?
What is going to happen if they take the decision that parliament is simply a waste of time? What if they decide that they can play a more effective role in the streets?
What will the supporters of the ruling party say then? That the opposition is wrong? That they are bad?
But what of the attitude of the government? Would they not have invited such a situation?
I hope that the supporters of the PPP can make their leaders see sense in being accommodating to the opposition. I hope they can reduce the stubbornness and hard-headedness that has come to characterise so much of the government's behaviour towards the other elected representatives of the people.
Unless the supporters of the PPP can convince their party of the serious error of their ways, Guyana is heading down the road to trouble, and we all know when that happens who are the ones that suffer the most.