Basdeo Panday and opposition Members of Parliament demonstrated Friday that they have a clear agenda for now on how they will conduct their affairs.Panday stated categorically earlier in the week and again Friday that the ‘laptop affair’ was not about the computer, suggesting that it was a conspiracy to silence opposition voices and undermine democracy.
The question now is where does it go from here as the next acts unfold in this political drama?
As the politicians dig into their respective positions the national agenda has shifted from such critical issues as rising food prices, escalating crime and the myriad other people’s issues to constitutional and parliamentary semantics that would not feed hungry bellies or calm the fears of a nation living in fear.
Over the next week Panday and his colleagues will go to the people to explain what has happened and what in their view is about to happen.
For six consecutive nights the opposition will state its position on the ‘laptop affair’ and attempt to paint the current administration as one that is intent on suppressing people’s rights, ignoring their concerns and undermining democracy.
Perhaps they will also offer some solutions to deal with the pressing needs of the people and justify any prolonged absence of the other 15 members from the opposition benches.
For the other side, Panday’s suspension from Parliament is just the first act in a continuing campaign to discredit the former prime minister.
The next will be to try to rob him of his seat as Leader of the Opposition. Here’s how. Section 83. 3. (b) of the Constitution states that the office of the Leader of The Opposition shall become vacant if "the holder thereof ceases to be a member of the House of Representatives for any cause other than a dissolution of Parliament."
Panday might fall into this category by virtue of his expulsion. If the president agrees that his expulsion means that he has "ceased" to be a member of the House, even temporarily, he has the constitutional authority to fire him. And therein lies the storyline for legal and constitutional battles that will follow. It is a matter of interpretation.
Panday is already arguing that the Speaker breached Standing Orders to suspend him because his memo on the use of laptop computers was improper. Therefore, if the rule was wrong then the Speaker was out of line to suspend him.
For his part Speaker Sinanan – and members of his governing party – argue that the Standing Orders under which Panday was suspended were clear and the matter of the ‘legality’ of the Speaker’s memo is irrelevant.
If the president moves to fire Panday, the Couva North MP will follow the same line of argument that his suspension is illegal. He will also argue that he has not "ceased" to be a member of the House.
But in the meantime, what about the people’s business?
Panday cannot return to the House during his suspension and his colleagues made a bold political statement Friday that they are standing with their leader.
For the next week, they will play to the masses and gauge public opinion before making their next move.
But they cannot - and must not - continue their boycott indefinitely. By all means, they must tell the people their version of the story and shout it as loudly as they can. That’s what democracy is all about.
But when the shouting is over the people’s business must come first. The people elected them to represent them both inside the Parliament and within their respective constituencies. That is their primary responsibility.
Here’s another interesting note. If the boycott continues, each of the MPs (except Panday) would be liable to expulsion and/or dismissal for non-attendance without the authorization of the Speaker.
What are the real opposition options?
- They can carry on with all the sound and fury, but in the end Panday will remain expelled until the end of the year (even if he mounts a legal and constitutional challenge)
- Panday will likely be fired as opposition leader, thereby creating a vacancy which the UNC-A alliance would have to fill, possibly opening old wounds and creating new ones
- By not attending Parliament the other MPs would automatically vacate their seats
- Breaking the boycott just to retain the legitimacy would be seen as hypocritical and opportunistic
- They can all resign and demand an election
Of course Manning would scoff at the idea and refuse. He has a five-month old majority of 26. Why seek another mandate?
And constitutionally he can continue to run the Parliament with his members only because the section 60:1 states that "a quorum of the House of Representatives shall consist of twelve members of the House and a quorum of the Senate shall consist of ten Senators…"
That’s based on the House of Representatives having 36 members; the expanded House of 41 puts that at one third, which is 14.
It is a tremendous political gamble with serious risks. However, under the constitution, a by-election must be held within three months of a seat becoming vacant.
If 16 seats become vacant at the same time, it would be a strong enough statement to demand a general election. The opposition would be treading on political landmines.
They might have to represent the people from outside Parliament for the next four and a half years. But that’s what going to happen in any case if they continue to boycott Parliament indefinitely.
If they quit and challenge Manning to a new political duel their chances of victory today are better than they were in 2007, especially with people seeing that the Congress of the People was a political mirage.
The number of national issues crying for attention, the disdain for the people shown by the Manning administration, the reckless expenditure and the serious allegations of corruption in Manning’s administration are enough to lift people out of complacency.
Although Manning will refuse to call a general election he would have to call 16 by-elections in 90 days. In those 90 days the opposition would have the opportunity to meet the people one-on-one and challenge the People’s National Movement (PNM) on opposition-friendly turf.
Manning and his PNM would have to fight the 16 by-elections or they will lose face as an arrogant, discriminatory party that doesn’t care about people in the opposition heartland. Manning cannot take that chance, so he would have to fight. And if the people are as fed up as I believe they are, they will return all 16 members to Parliament.
The opposition loses nothing, and gains credibility. And it would have three months to showcase itself as a government in waiting by putting all the national problems on the front burner and by offering solutions.
But perhaps Manning’s arrogance will tempt him to call a general election. Stranger things have happened.
The challenges are enormous, but so are the possibilities.
No comments:
Post a Comment