WHY NO COMMENT LAST WEEK ON MR. SPEAKER?

A friend called to ask why I had not commented on the performance of Mr. Speaker over his apparent spat with the prime minister after he refused to withdraw certain words spoken by him during the most recent House session. The Speaker’s timidity in the face of the PM’s resistance gave cause for concern. It was the reason the parliamentary opposition gave for staging yet another walk-out. I contended in my last article that the overwhelming success of the UWP’s three-year celebratory public meeting at Soufriere had set the stage for the underlying hostility at the subsequent House meeting. 

That phone call came when I was at page 291 of Calixte George’s 800-page encyclopedic/historiography masterpiece covering the past 130 years of St. Mary’s College in Saint Lucia. I quote Brother Canice Collins at page 291: “When the time comes to send your boy to College, you cannot relax and leave everything to us. Education and upbringing for decent and responsible manhood is something we can share in with you, not take over from you.” My first thoughts after I read this were to examine the educational background of sitting MPs. Specifically, what was the quality of the home environment in which they grew up and does it impact the quality of their contributions (and behavior) at meetings of the House. 

I had previously toyed with the idea of including a chapter on the influence of home, school and community in my first book “Shattered Dreams,” especially after speaking to friends in Grenada who assured me that the differences between Maurice Bishop and Unison Whiteman on one hand, and those who had arrested and executed them on the other, were as deep as the different secondary schools the two opposing camps within the Peoples’ Liberation Army, (PRA) attended: GBSS and Presentation College, Grenada. If I was to make a suitable reply to my telephone conversation last Sunday, it was imperative that I reached back and examine the various compositions of the House (including Speakers) since I last served as an MP. In my day, Wilfred St. Clair Daniel had spent at least two decades as Speaker of the House and was regarded as a fine practitioner of the art wherever British Parliamentary democracy was practiced.

Since that time, we have had some political hacks appointed as Speaker and who lacked any hint of fair play and balance during House sittings. These hacks unashamedly supported the government that nominated them Speaker. Interestingly, their academic qualifications, home environment and community were never questioned or analyzed, as these were taken by journalists as par-for-the-course. Who can forget Guy Joseph putting an over-enthusiastic political Speaker in his place by questioning whether it was his role to advise MP what to say, and how to say it. I suspect there has been a conspiracy to discredit Guy Joseph by people who are no better. And Guy knows it; hence the reason he so often smiles while delivering his biting rebuttals.

The other matter which took center stage after I vacated the House was the constant clamoring for the appointment of a deputy Speaker. The refinement of parliamentary practice might have suggested that a deputy Speaker arose from the ranks of the opposition. Rather than grasp that potential to have someone sit in the Speaker’s chair, even temporarily, the opposition raged and fumed and spent well over a year debating the meaning of “as soon as convenient.” It got so bad that it may have affected the health of a certain Madam Speaker who presided at the time. She soon abandoned ship, and returned to England where she had read law, and where her services are better appreciated.

That raises another interesting question in addition to home, schooling and community influences on an MP. Does the way a man treat a woman reflect his formative experiences at home, school and community? On reflection, can we draw any conclusions from the behavior of the honorable members of our male-dominated House? Or is the male-on-male disrespect free of gender biases?

What of the present Mr. Speaker? Was his initial aim to maintain peace with the House opposition at all cost? In my political book, the worst thing one can do is to compromise with wrong-headedness and illogical nonsense during an important debate. In my time, I read, researched, prepared suitable notes, and fired on all cylinders when I addressed the House. Even in my most heated debates, however, I was always able to withdraw an insult and to reword it to suit the ruling of Mr. Speaker, and merit recording in Handsard.  If I were to dare advise the prime minister, I would urge him to quietly seek Mr. Speaker and apologize to him for not withdrawing the words that had troubled him at the last sitting of the House. In return Mr. Speaker should make a short statement at the opening of the next session that included his intolerance of any further insubordination!