Words and a Parliament Devalued

[dropcap]I[/dropcap]’ve stood-up in defence of Guy Joseph ever since an honourable member of Her Majesty’s opposition referred to him during a debate as a dog. I remember wondering at the time who actually had been proved a canine: the name caller or his target? It also had occurred to me that the foundations of the venerable House may have started to crumble when another MP of the breed that dared to cast Guy Joseph as a poodle had himself threatened to shoot a colleague during a sitting of parliament.

For my part, an MP’s performance in parliament has always borne a close resemblance to his cast of mind. His behaviour is a reflection of himself, his competence in the use of English, his intellectual preparedness for the job. I have supported Guy Joseph (as opposed to mindlessly defending him) because I have a natural propensity for standing by the underdogs of this world. Let others malign and ridicule. That has never been my style. Indeed, I have a severe antipathy for persons who attempt to marginalize and ridicule others.

Let me be clear, I do not consider it a useful strategy to walk out of parliament. I’ve long believed that an MP’s reason for contesting elections is to give voice to the voiceless; a face to the faceless, and hope to the hopeless. Addressing parliament is an opportunity for an MP to soar like an eagle into the rarefied air of politics, philosophy and economics. He is expected to deliver with style and eloquence, and panache. An MP declares his mettle, when he is on his feet addressing parliament.

The recent challenge by Mr. Speaker that MP Guy Joseph retract certain words used in a cross-exchange with an opposition member, while both were seated, left me dumbfounded. At the time of the incident neither MP was on his feet, or attempting to catch the Speaker’s attention. Mr. Speaker should have ignored them. And if his sensitive microphone picked up any of the below-the-belt cross-talk, well, let us remember Mr. Speaker has the authority to decide what does not go on the record.        

I take no pleasure from saying I find local House sittings largely uninspiring. The quality of debate suggests MPs do scant research and too often speak off the cuff and out of turn. It’s a sad reflection on MPs. Unparliamentary conduct suggests poor upbringing; a warped sense of right and wrong. Few can predict accurately the outcome of elections. But as sad and counterproductive as it is, constituencies not represented by MPs on the side of government are unlikely to receive much attention during the five years following an election. This must change but in the meantime it is what it is.

Another reason I stand up for Guy Joseph (who, like me, falls short of the glory of God) is personal experience. Whenever a politician takes a principled stance, and is unafraid to speak his mind, he is seen as a threat to the status quo. People who ought to know better will disavow the plain-spoken politician. Fearing the unknown is a human weakness. Courage is born in the cradle of the soul wherein good and bad is often in turmoil, in the human breast. Once a determination is made, however unpopular it may seem, the genuine leader stands firm, and is prepared to lose his popularity rather than sacrifice his soul to weaker men.   

It’s worth an MP’s time adopting Mr. Speaker as a friend. (That goes for both sides.) Before a sitting of the House it’s wise to alert the Speaker that a matter may arise in which the MP has a constituency interest or that might need the Speaker’s intervention. A courtesy visit to the Speaker’s office is a refinement on the etiquette of the House. MPs ought to remember that the House of Assembly is the theatre of politics, to which constituents are often drawn to observe and listen. An MP must therefore conduct himself in parliament accordingly. The Standing Orders ought to hold, unless the parliament is faced with a MP gone loco.

The other reason I stand up for Guy Joseph is because I have been in situations where MPs have used me as a shield. I take comfort in the knowledge that weak politicians have a very short shelf life. They are easily forgotten because they never occupied public attention in the first place.

I leave you, dear reader, with these words from US President Theodore Roosevelt, delivered at the Sorbonne in 1910: “It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit actually belongs to the man who is in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat . . . because there is no effort without error and shortcoming . . . If he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.”  Unfortunately, too many MPs will never discover what it means to put everything on the line for a worthwhile cause!