Strange parliamentary behaviour

Ms. Mmasekgoa Masire-Mwamba, Commonwealth Deputy Secretary-General (2008-2014) once said, “Government can only be as good as its opposition.” She further stated that political cooperation is important to creating constructive partnership between Government and Opposition. It is worthy of noting that the then Deputy Secretary-General said, “This can only be achieved if the political system works constructively for the welfare of all, not if it creates or exacerbates ruptures in society.”  There is no political cooperation in Guyana which is making the political system dysfunctional.

Last month, when Speaker of the National Assembly, Manzoor Nadir, refused to allow Members of the A Partnership for National Unity + Alliance for Change (APNU+AFC) the right to speak, they took Parliament to the street. A parliament, as it were, was held at the Stabroek Market square allowing for supporters and the world to hear the concerns of these parliamentarians. Where the Speaker’s behaviour could be an attempt to stifle responsible free speech it was fitting not to allow the right to be stifled.

The main Opposition, APNU+AFC, did promise there will be more street parliament around Guyana, to be held in the towns for starters. A next such sitting, and venue is still to be made known. The coalition’s parliamentarians should not disappoint or allow themselves to be accused of making commitments but failing to keep them. In the meantime, it is being noticed some Members have taken to creating their own social media platform. At least no less than five have created outlets, discussing topical issues and hosting guests. This is strange parliamentary behaviour.

The behaviour is strange not in the sense of utilising new media, particularly when there are not having equal access to some mainstream media to tell their stories. Neither is it strange the use of social media platforms, given the platforms are useful for mobilising and connecting with the masses. Social media are too utilised by mainstream media, businesses, politicians, government, international organisations, etc.

The strangeness of the behaviour is that it looks as though the parliamentarians are moving towards an individual programme which still does not satisfy the communication and public relations (PR) needs of the Opposition.  The behaviour also suggests recognition on the part of some that the Opposition may not be doing enough to reach its supporters, including adequately responding to and exposing the governing People’s Progressive Party/Civic. The Opposition’s communication and PR needs will not be satisfied this way. They need some form of structure.

The Opposition is not devoid of intellectual capital to create a formidable communication and PR structure. But definitely something is not being done in a manner to lend confidence they are on top of their game. In the absence of this, the various social media programmes seem like self-projection, or as some ponder, a sign of desperation to occupy the communication and PR vacuum. Another area of observation is that these programmes seldom, if at all, show the parliamentarians in their respective district engaging their constituents.

Observers of the various programmes do not see Members of Parliament in the communities meeting with the people, whose concern they should be listening to and representing at the national level. At the most basic this is the essence of cultivating representation. People have to be engaged to know their concerns.  Something is amiss. The APNU+AFC needs to review their PR and communication strategy, likewise the promise to hold street parliament. As quoted from Walter Lipman, “In a democracy, the opposition is not only tolerated as constitutional, but must be maintained because it is indispensable.” The opposition is indispensable and should start acting as such.