I made a point over the weekend that the whole laptop affair last Friday in the Trinidad and Tobago Parliament was a farce. The spin that is already taking shape will have nothing to do with the computer and everything to do with “Basdeo Panday’s recalcitrance”. I use that term guardedly because of the emotive connotation going back to a livid rant by a premier in Woodford Square in 1958.
The Trinidad Guardian has already set the tone. In an editorial it noted that Panday was out of line and he should follow the rules. Bishop Abdullah is also sounding off on it. And Prime Minister Patrick Manning is talking about lawlessness in the House, which he says he won’t tolerate. (He seems content enough to tolerate it in the country. But that’s another matter.)
And lest you think that Manning used that word off the cuff, think carefully. His mission since Panday was running the government was to paint the man in a corner with allegations of corruption.
He has succeeded – with the media’s help to some extent - in shaping a public image of Panday as a corrupt man, even a criminal. There’s no need to labour the point; we know the story.
So when Manning talks about “lawlessness” he is saying “that criminal Panday”. He’s crafting his imagery very carefully. It’s the way spin works.
So unless Panday and his colleagues expose what’s happening, and point out why Manning threw a fete for his people right after kicking Panday out of the House, the “laptop affair” will go down in the country’s political history as another incident of Panday throwing a tantrum and a responsible Parliament dealing with him appropriately. Period. Matter closed.
I know you’re asking what’s the point? Didn’t the Speaker kick Panday out for not following instructions? Wasn’t Panday out of place not to follow the Speaker’s ruling?
Ok. Well that’s the point of the propaganda. Don’t fall for it.
Parliament is governed by a set of rules called Standing Orders. The speaker can’t make them up and neither can any MP. The ones that apply now have been there since 1961, the dark ages when you think of modern technology.
These standing Orders set out rules, guidelines and procedures for the operation of the nation’s Parliament.
And they are different from any letter that a Speaker might want to send from time to time. So if the Speaker wants to issue directives about the conduct of Parliament and the behaviour of members he must do so in accordance with the Standing Orders.
That means if Speaker Barendra Sinanan wanted to make a ruling on the use of computers then he should consult these same Standing Orders to be guided as to how to go about writing his directive.
And if he had done so, he would have found no reference to laptop computers or any of the modern communication devices in the Standing Orders, because they didn’t exist in 1961 when they were adopted.
Then he would have to be guided by the relevant Standing Order that said when there is doubt you must follow what the British Parliament is doing, in which case he would have known that in the United Kingdom Parliamentarians are not only allowed to use their computers, blackberries etc., they are encouraged to do so. After all, this is the 21st century.
So the point is that Speaker Barendra Sinanan is trying to establish an autocracy in the people’s Parliament. His actions are a clear and present threat to our democracy.
By sending out his memo on when and under what circumstances an MP can use a computer he is saying he can change any rule to suit his pleasure or the whims of those pulling his strings.
A computer is really an electronic library, filing cabinet, communication tool and a million more things. The Speaker’s break with ethical parliamentary conduct and established Standing Orders illustrates contempt for the democratic process, and is a first step to a parliamentary dictatorship in which free speech is a casualty.
Forbes Burnham told me once that his regime never censored the press. When I pressed him with examples he explained it this way: “We just tell them what not to print. We are a developing nation and when the press prints stories that are inimical to the interest of the state and our development process, then we tell them they can’t print such stories.”
That was in 1975. But the danger lurks everywhere. And a government determined to suppress free speech and undermine democracy and citizens’ rights will, like Burnham, change all the rules unless the people stop them.
Suppose Mr. Speaker sends out a memo saying MP’s can’t criticize government policy without first submitting notes to the House? If we accept the legitimacy of the memo on computer use, then we accept that the speaker can do this too.
If you follow the logic that was used to expel Panday, you will see that Barendra Sinanan – or any Speaker - can make ANY rule, regardless of what the Standing Orders say, by sending out a memo. That’s a violation of Parliamentary procedure.
The danger is that the Speaker, in attempting to redefine the Parliamentary protocol, is arbitrarily establishing rules without reference to the Standing Orders. If we let that happen, we abdicate our freedoms.
And take it another step.
Can he not send a memo telling MP’s they can’t have their briefcases in Parliament? A computer is an electronic briefcase. In effect his memo was saying MPs could use a briefcase only under rules established by the Speaker.
Barendra Sinanan’s actions are a threat to Parliamentary democracy. And it’s a pity that the whole nation will be fed the trash about Panday being kicked out because he didn’t “respect the chair”.
The media and the public are falling for the propaganda and the spin and not seeing what is really happening. We are keeping our eyes on the spider and getting tangled in the web.
And when Panday returns to Parliament on Friday, as he says he would, the real story will remain untold.
If I were in Panday’s shoes, I would leave Sinanan and the Parliament alone and walk a mile with the people. I would tell them what is really going.
Why? Because in a real democracy, the people are more powerful than those who govern them.
No comments:
Post a Comment