No basis for any sanction
January 24, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source
A Partnership for National Unity (APNU) should spare Guyana further embarrassment. It should avoid holding the National Assembly up to possible ridicule by refraining from the absurdity of attempting to place the Minister of Finance before the Committee of Privileges.
APNU wants to have the Minister of Finance sanctioned for his failure to comply with a resolution of the National Assembly concerning the National Industrial and Commercial Investments Limited (NICIL). APNU has no basis to do so, and if its proceeds with this ill-advised action, would open the National Assembly to being seen as an object of political amusement. Guyana should be spared that fate.
Anyone with an elementary understanding of how parliaments work would know that resolutions and motions are not binding on the government. Motions and resolutions are instruments through which the majority of the members of the legislature express an intention or a viewpoint.
Adhering to resolutions and motions has nothing to do with obedience to the Standing Orders. Standing Orders are concerned with the procedures of the National Assembly, while adhering to resolutions and motions are about giving effect to the decisions made in the National Assembly. The Cabinet is not bound by such motions and resolutions.
The reasons are fairly obvious. If governments were bound by the motions and resolutions of the legislature, then such motions would become the basis of arrogating to the legislature, the ability to determine on government policy. The determination of such policy has always been the remit of the Executive.
The role of the legislature is to debate policy and to pass Bills, including Financial Bills. If the legislature feels that the government is totally unresponsive, then it is within its powers to pass a special type of motion known as a motion of no confidence which, by convention, should lead to the resignation of the government. There is, therefore, no type of parliamentary motion that is legally binding on the government. The government is not even bound by the motions it supports.
The Minister of Finance therefore cannot be sanctioned for not complying with non-binding acts of the National Assembly.
How then, it may be asked, are the opposition parties to force responses from government? In his seminal work “Cabinet Ministers and Parliamentary Government”, Michael Laver reaffirms the position that parliamentary motions do not bind the government. But Laver goes on to point out a number of ways in which parliaments can force a response from a minister.
The first is by asking questions. This is recourse which for some inexplicable reason is underutilized in Guyana’s National Assembly. Yet when employed, it has proven quite effective in allowing the opposition to hold the government’s feet to the proverbial fire.
It should be recalled that it was the Alliance for Change that asked questions about the broadcasting spectrum. This particular question elicited a response from the Prime Minister which stunningly revealed that a number of persons close to the ruling party had been granted radio licences. This was a sensational disclosure that allowed the public for the first time to know just what had taken place as regards the distribution of licences. Had that question not been asked, the public and the National Assembly would have been none the wiser.
The second way of forcing responses is through parliamentary debate, including debate on resolutions and motions. In these debates, the government can be criticized and alternative policy proposals can be advanced. Governments will be forced here to defend their actions and decisions. This debate is part of the public record and allows the electorate to assess the merits of competing proposals.
Thirdly, the opposition can force a response through hearings. A while back there was big furor over NICIL. The State-owned television station invited the opposition parties to be part of a debate-series on various issues involving NICIL. One opposition parliamentarian declined the offer of a debate with the Head of NICIL, claiming he did not wish to debate with him but rather to interrogate him.
The response suggested that the opposition member was also delineating a hierarchical relationship between himself and the Head of NICIL by implying that his role was not to debate with the Head of NICIL as equals but rather for the Head of NICIL to be accountable to him as a parliamentarian.
The public is still waiting for that interrogation. And it shows that the opposition parties are not utilizing the means at their disposal to hold government accountable. Instead there have been attempts to stop the Minister of Home Affairs from speaking and to have him placed before the Committee of Privileges, without it being clear just what offence he was being committed for.
Now, there is this latest threat about sanctioning the Minister of Finance!
APNU, all heady about the combined opposition’s razor-slim majority, is operating as if that majority affords it the right to demand that the government do what the opposition parties compel in the National Assembly. It does not, and the sooner APNU deflates and comes to that realization, the less embarrassment and humiliation it will suffer.