|
By Khemraj Ramjattan
Saturday, November 5th 2005
(MPs Khemraj Ramjattan and Raphael Trotman do monthly columns for Stabroek News on a topic of their choice)
In my address at the launch of the AFC last Saturday I argued the case that the continued presence in the National Assembly of Trotman, Holder and myself, until such time as we individually decide to leave, if ever we so decide, is wholly constitutional and moral. The Telfords and Stellas and Bakrs disagreed. I respect their position and will fight to the very end to safeguard their right to so express their opinion.
My position on the constitutionality and legality of our present status cannot be questioned. It is supported by the Speaker of the House who ruled that he has no jurisdiction to throw out Raphael upon Mr. Corbin's application to have him disqualified. Earlier, when the PPP after my expulsion wanted me out, he had similarly ruled.
Moreover, the Learned Chief Justice Carl Singh in an application to disqualify Manzoor Nadir, who crossed the floor from The United Force to the PPP/C, ruled that there is nothing unconstitutional about such conduct and dismissed the application.
Legal opinion sought by the President from a famous Guyanese lawyer, who straddles the highest courts in the Caribbean and the Privy Council of London, supports this position.
Now if such a position as ours in the AFC is legal and no way constitutionally improper how can it be immoral? Legal propriety is generally synonymous with morality. I suppose the argument will just get down to a subjectivist realm.
There needs to be a re-emphasis of certain points I made at the launch, and an emphasis of an additional few.
Firstly, the concept of Parliamentary democracy which is at the foundation of the electoral system focuses on peoples' power and peoples' interest; not party's power and party's interest. A party is simply the vehicle to getting worthy members through a list system into that destination called the National Assembly. Once that destination is reached, through a combination of election - by the electorate, and selection - by the leader of the list, such members of the National Assembly become representatives of the people and defenders of the constitution and the national interest.
Members of the National Assembly who understand this will ensure a greater efficacy of the Assembly. It is because on vital issues, on matters that really matter, members see themselves not as the peoples' representatives, but as puppets of a party, that that authentic Parliamentary culture we want in our country is devastated. This is why those who make the call do not realise that they are unconsciously subscribers to the doctrines of party paramountcy and democratic centralism.
Additionally, members of the National Assembly have constitutional rights which do not fade into oblivion upon entry into that august body. My appointment as an MP never entailed a restriction or subjugation of my right to associate, which includes my right to dissociate, or my right to express dissenting views. Service in the National Assembly is not and cannot be premised on the deprivation of or restriction on my fundamental rights to freely express myself and to freely associate/disassociate.
Consequently, the call by party leaders, columnists and letter writers for us to vacate our seats clearly demonstrates what contempt they have for our constitutional rights to disassociate and dissent.
Paradoxically, in taking the stance we have, we are defending not only our individual fundamental rights but also those of each and every member of the National Assembly extracted from their respective party's lists. It is the sacred duty of each and every Member of the Assembly to stand with us in defence of the constitutional right of each and every member to freedom of association and to free _expression. If they are unwilling to defend their own interest, they hardly can be expected to defend the public interest and the constitutional rights of the ordinary citizens.
Much more than the skirts of the PNC and the PPP is being revealed. The extent to which these parties have subjugated, or are seeking to subjugate, constitutional rights of Parliamentarians to narrow party interests is now being exposed.
Having exercised our freedom to dissociate and dissent from our respective parties, and to associate with and express support for the AFC, can never mean that our vote in the National Assembly on whatever issue will not be one in the national interest.
Standing up for fundamental rights, and sacrificing the party's interest for the national interest, can hardly be classified as politically immoral. Party sycophancy is antithetical to political morality. But it may just be that party sycophancy has cultivated its own peculiar moral values in its conscious or unconscious adherents.
By the way, is not this exactly what Manzoor Nadir did? Was he immoral? Was the PPP/C aiding and abetting immorality when they took him on board? Why this moral outrage from the PNC now when it benefited from similar cross-overs by Parliamentarians like Teekah and Chandisingh? Wilbert Telford, was the PNC immoral when it caused so many PPPites to cross over to its side of the House? Or is it moral only when Parliamen-starians come into these parties' fold; but not when Parliamentarians abandon such parties to form their own? What hypocrisy!
Finally, let me say that all the recommendations of the various experts will mean nothing, absolutely nothing, if an appreciation of this approach to Parliamentary democracy is missed by Parliamentarians. They will remain stultified in their growth as defenders and promoters of the national interest; they will remain just as their parties' controlling cabals want them to be, mere glorifiers of party interests. This was the genesis of Burnhamism. We must prevent a reincarnation of this despicable system
So my message to my colleagues in the National Assembly will go something like this:
"Parliamentarians unite - you have only your Party shackles to lose".
|
