Conscientious people cannot be pleased with the conduct of debates in the House of Assembly (the Parliament) of the Commonwealth of Dominica.
The House is presided by a blatantly and brazenly biased Speaker who routinely shuts down the Parliamentary Opposition’s questions to Ministers of Government, a gross violation of the legitimate right of the Parliament to hold the government to account. She is an active participant in the debate, constantly interrupting the presentations of Members of the Opposition on often spurious grounds. The interjections have become so manifestly habitual over the years that a cynic may suggest to the Opposition Members that they allow the Speaker to script their statements and thereby avoid the aggravation. When her ruling is ably challenged, she reverts to her default position ‘‘I deem it so. That’s my ruling.’’ Listening to the debates through ear phones, one sometimes hear her mumbled disagreements with or disbelief in points made by Opposition Members during their contributions.
By contrast, this Speaker allows much latitude to Members on the government side. Even on the occasions when she cautions those Members against implying improper motives or making accusatory comments about others who are not in the Parliament to defend themselves, her admonishment comes after they already have said much.
The apogee thus far of her long reign of crude and naked biasness and political malice is her contradictory but politically convenient actions relating to the membership of the House. In May 2010, she granted to herself the power to declare the Marigot and Salisbury constituencies, held by the Opposition, vacant of representation.
This action is inspite of the advice of the then present President, a legal scholar and former High Court Judge, that the ‘‘The Constitution confers jurisdiction on the High Court to hear and determine the question whether any Member of the House has vacated his seat….It would not be simply a matter for Parliament to decide, even if the Member had missed the required number of meetings in the circumstances laid down in the Standing Orders. Nor could Parliament or the Speaker invoke the sovereignty of Parliament in an effort to prevent the enquiry by this court.’’
That advice was given to the Speaker and the House of Assembly on 31 July, 2009.
The affected Members sought redress from the Court. Unfortunately, the Court opted not to rule on the substantive questions of the jurisdiction of the Speaker and dismissed the case on the ground that the vacating of the seats were moot since both gentlemen who held the seats were re-elected in the by-elections that followed.
In August 2015, the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Speaker that the failure to disclose that the ruling party’s Jahisiah Benoit is the beneficiary of a government contract and to have it published in the Official Gazette renders his appointment as a Senator unconstitutional in keeping with Section 32 (1)(f) of the Constitution of the land. She responded that it is a matter for the Court to decide.
She declared on her own that the Opposition’s seats were vacant in 2010 but is unwilling to make a declaration on the constitutionality of the senatorial appointment on the ruling party’s side.
At the first convening of the Assembly following the general elections of December 2014, the Speaker refused to insert the written questions of the elected Members of the Opposition to the government on the Order Paper on the grounds that they were strangers to the House up to the time of their taking the House of Assembly oath.
Yet, she permitted the Members on the government side, who themselves were taking the same oath at the same sitting, to put their matters, including the amendment to a law, on the agenda of that sitting. How much abuse and compromising of the position of Speaker will society tolerate?
The Prime Minister’s premature end (it was not even a winding-up) to the 2015/2016 budget debate when most of his own Ministers and the Opposition had not yet spoken is gross disrespect for the role of the Parliament, the taxpayers and the citizens of the country who voted the Members to represent them. The national budget is about resource allocation and priorities and therefore is central to the political debate on the welfare of the people.
The budget debate is looked forward to by the great majority of people and the Members of the House themselves. Even Parliamentarians who normally do not participate (except perhaps by turning up) in the debates in the House make the effort to contribute to the budget debate. The Prime Minister’s action was high-handed and undemocratic. The glee that ensued among the Members on the government side who believed that the Prime Minister had outsmarted the Opposition is childish behavior.
They delight in denying Opposition members, including the Leader of the Opposition, the concession of an extra five minutes to conclude their presentations. This, too, is childish and suggests a lack of generosity of spirit.
At times, the Honourable House is reduced to Lagon-type political entertainment with Reginald Austrie, the MP for Cottage, playing the lead bull dog and stand-up comedian role, specialising in argumentum ad hominem. Courtesy the Speaker, of course.
In this environment, it may not be unreasonable to think that there is concerted effort to delegitimize the claims of the Opposition, to mute their voices, to disparage them, to make them disappear into oblivion.
Serious and genuinely publicly-spirited people have sacred regard for the Parliament as the highest court in the land. And, like a court of law, deliberations are the stock-in-trade, if you will, of the Parliament. The word parliament comes from the French word “parler”, meaning to speak. Deliberation, in general terms, refer to a process of decision making based on reasoned discussions. Because the decisions they take affect the lives of the governed in great measure (even in matters of life and death), the Parliamentarians on all sides of the House ought to regard the engagement in deliberations as sacred duty.
Amartya Sen, Nobel laureate and author of Development as Freedom, makes the following point about fostering effective deliberation in a democracy:
‘‘Not only is the force of public discussion one of the correlates of democracy…but its cultivation can also make democracy itself function better….Just as it is important to emphasize the need for democracy, it is also crucial to safeguard the conditions and circumstances that ensure the range and reach of the democratic process….The achievement of social justice depends not only on institutional forms…but also on effective practice.’’
To my mind, effective practice includes open, vibrant, informed, rational and substantive discussions in the Parliament (and beyond) on issues that affect the lives of the people, unimpeded by the nagging of a politically partisan Speaker and the abuse of numbers and in which each Member has an equal voice.
The utility of this position is underscored in the recently released World Bank’s study on the relationship between deliberation and the development process (entitled Deliberation and Development: Rethinking the Role of Voice and Collective Action in Unequal Societies). It notes ‘‘the more a decision is secured through a process of rational discussion, the closer it comes to a “common good″ and hence carries greater legitimacy than the arithmetic fiat of voting (majority rule) or the competitive power play of bargaining.’’
The self-respecting people of Dominica deserve no less from their Parliament!
Opinions expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Dominica News Online or its advertisers.
Observer please observe………..this article is noting the blatant hypocrisy of the behaviour and attitude of the Speaker. Everything Norris wrote off is a fact and a serious concern for all Dominicans. The house is being led by an immature PM who hopes no regards to debate but rather go around the island talking rubbish that should have been well debated to the public over a week.
The biggest impediment to Dominicans political maturity and economic growth is this sitting Prime Minister and his band of inept followers in the house.
While Mr. Skeritt prematurely wraps up the debate depriving not only the Opposition but His own Ministers He then embarks on a series of Town Hall meetings in the guise of informing the Public .Of course the Opposition Members are not present to challenge Him there .This is another way of getting around our Democratic system .There is no doubt in my mind that Mr. Skeritt is a wannabee Dictator and We the People must stop Him before He grows into a Qaddafi ,someone He referred to as His Friend.
Even when I do not agree with everything Mr. Norris has said in this piece, I commend him for expressing himself and commenting. Even when Mr. Norris singled out the Speaker and other members of the House (Government side) for mention, he displayed no crass disrespect for the holders of this high office. He spoke his mind. he seemingly is very unhappy with the Speaker, but did not allow his partisan view (his right) to degenerate into mud-slinging. WE need more of such respectful exchange of views.
I disagree however with Mr. Norris on two fronts. 1. He gives the impression that it is only the government side of the House that keep infringing the rules. 2. He does not say that the House has its own rules including the appointment of a Speaker to “police” as it were the very same rules. Are u suggesting that the Opposition has any respect for the Speaker?
Observer please observe………..this article is noting the blatant hypocrisy of the behaviour and attitude of the Speaker. Everything Norris wrote off is a fact and a serious concern for all Dominicans. The house is being led by an immature PM who hopes no regards to debate but rather go around the island talking rubbish that should have been well debated to the public over a week.
The biggest impediment to Dominicans political maturity and economic growth is this sitting Prime Minister and his band of inept followers in the house.
Agree with you, she is the worst speaker ever, this woman is nothing but a bully, I do not listen to that nonsense and that fish market parliament, the Prime Minister and his kindergarten boys have no respect, ma knight is bias, rhe way that she talk to member of the opposition in an aggressive manner, this woman allows the prime minister and the rest of his disgraceful ministers say what ever they want in the house, and before the opposition member open their mouths she jump on their throats, all this shall surely come ro pass ma knight
The Speaker of the House is there at the wishes of the Prime Minister and will do whatever he wishes of her. can you recall the incident involving whether DBS was carrying the house broadcast live on the main waveband? She could only stammer a response when he ordered that it be done, She cannot be and has never been an objective speaker, so we should not be surprised at the manner in which she conducts the business of the house.
Well said Norris, I couldn’t agree with you more. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the despicable and disgraceful behavior of the Speaker. Shame! Shame! Shame!
Great Article Mr. Norris.
Good article! Shame on the speaker!She needs to go!!
“You get the government you deserve”…Thomas Jefferson
Its the big fish small pond mentality. She does what she likes , no one reprimands her . She’s a well paid bully .
Mr. Norris, anyone who questions your perspective presented here is living in a world foreign to Dominica. Your expressions shed light on matters that should not be bought by a selected group. Thanks for your bravery and clarity on the very channel, that is, Hattie parliament where our democracy is supposed to get its life from.
Dominicans are to blame for the behavior of the speaker. she will go down in our history as the worst ever to sit in that position and the ruling government have no idea the damage she caused which can have a negative impact for future parliamentary debate.