Tit for tat politics

IT IS essential for the nation’s parliament to set the best examples and the highest standards of our democracy in action. If this is not demonstrated here, then where else? In the wee hours of Thursday morning, the Government failed dismally in this regard by denying Fyzabad MP Chandresh Sharma the conventional 30-minute extension of his speaking time. The refusal to allow the Opposition member to continue, in our view, smacks of an autocratic use of its majority power in the House having regard to the circumstances in which the decision was taken and the reasons given by the Leader of Government Business for it.

In the first place, we can see no reason why debate on the Finance Committee report permitting the Government to spend $644,805,338 more on budgetary proposals should be allowed to proceed all through the night and into the next morning. What was the great urgency to have this motion passed on Wednesday? What harm, what inconvenience, what setback to the country’s business would have ensued if the debate were adjourned at a reasonable time, to be continued at the next session? It was the Government’s prerogative to take such an adjournment and Minister Valley cannot use the lateness of the debate and the fact that all members of the Opposition wanted to speak as the Government’s justification for denying the Fyzabad MP an extension.

If, for whatever reason, all the UNC members wanted to talk on this motion, they were simply exercising their parliamentary right over which there should no contention. Indeed, knowing the UNC’s intention, it would have been wiser political strategy for the Government to adjourn the sitting and give the Opposition all the time they need at subsequent sessions - even if Government members may find these hours useful for snoozing or reading Newsday. The spirit of democracy, at least, would have suggested such a course of action. But what this incident in the House also illustrates is the sorry state of the country’s politics. The Opposition and Mr Sharma himself cannot claim to be innocent victims in this episode, inspite of the heavy hand of the Government.

The special motion called for speakers to confine their remarks to the subject matter under debate but they had to be constantly cautioned by the Speaker for straying into irrelevance. What was the reason for this, if not to deliberately provoke? If the overall strategy was to annoy the Government into making such a faux pas, then they can claim absolute success. Where is this kind of retrogressive tit-for-tat politics taking our country? Which side will make concessions in their determined stand so that the people’s business and interest can be properly pursued?

Having walked out of the House en masse after Thursday morning’s incident, the UNC opposition is now threatening to escalate the issue by boycotting the parliament. We can only hope that wiser counsel will prevail since such a withdrawal would not only be an abdication of their responsibility to their constituents and the country but also create a measure of political instability from which nobody would profit. Does our democracy matter? And when will our so-called political leaders come to their senses?