When dialogue becomes the casualty

Dear Editor,

I write with considerable disappointment and bewilderment over the decision by members of APNU and WIN not to participate in the meeting convened by President Dr Mohamed Irfaan Ali with members of the Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Foreign Relations.

This was not a political rally, campaign meeting or an attempt to replace Parliament. It was an opportunity for some elected WIN and APNU Members to sit across the table from the President Ali and engage directly on matters of clear national importance.

The issues identified included Guyana’s proceedings before the International Court of Justice^[1], the agreement concerning third-country nationals between Guyana and the United States^[2], and broader economic developments. These are precisely the kinds of issues on which a responsible and objective Opposition should want information, explanations and answers.

Instead, the country was presented with reasons for not attending.

APNU’s position was that there should first be a clear agenda and relevant supporting documentation, including proposed agreements, financing frameworks and assessments, sufficiently in advance to permit proper examination. WIN went further, arguing that the president’s approach to parliamentary committees amounted to a disregard for the constitutional role of the Leader of the Opposition and the independence of Parliament.

These concerns can legitimately be raised at the meeting, of course, even though they can be easily answered by the government and the president. In my opinion, they are smokescreen and convenient reasons for not attending but the obvious question is: why did they require a boycott?

After all, if WIN and APNU believed that documentation was inadequate, they could have attended and said so directly. They could have placed their concerns formally on the record, asked the president for the documents, sought clarification on the matters under discussion and then reported their concerns publicly.

That would have been parliamentary engagement. Instead, the country got absence.

The argument advanced by WIN is particularly worthy of scrutiny because the Speaker of the National Assembly subsequently rejected the suggestion that its questions had received no meaningful response. According to the Speaker’s office, Opposition Chief Whip Tabitha Sarabo-Halley wrote seeking clarification and requested an early response, and Parliament responded on Monday morning, stating that the questions raised had been addressed.^[3]

That does not mean every question was necessarily answered to WIN’s satisfaction. Nor does it prevent the Opposition from disagreeing with the response. But there is an important distinction between not receiving the answer one wanted and not receiving an answer at all.

That distinction matters. There is also an apparent contradiction in the Opposition’s position. APNU says it has questions on matters including the energy sector, foreign-exchange pressures, the cost of living and safety in schools.

But if you have questions, why decline an opportunity to put them directly to the president?

If you believe the government has failed to provide adequate information, why surrender an opportunity to demand that information face-to-face?

And if you believe the president’s approach to Parliament is constitutionally problematic, why not attend and make that argument directly in the very meeting you contend should operate according to proper parliamentary principles?

The decision therefore raises a broader question about the meaning of parliamentary opposition.

Opposition members were elected to scrutinise the government, challenge its decisions, demand accountability and represent the concerns of their constituents. That responsibility does not disappear when an engagement is inconvenient or when the Opposition objects to the manner in which an invitation was extended.

Indeed, difficult political relationships make direct engagement more and not less important.

The President’s Office has said that all members of the relevant committee were invited through the Speaker.^[4] The subsequent meeting proceeded with members who attended, and President Ali said the government intends to strengthen its engagement with parliamentary committees in an open, transparent and accountable manner.

Whatever one’s political affiliation, that stated objective deserves to be tested through participation rather than absence.

A letter carried in the press correctly identifies one of the central weaknesses in the boycott argument: procedural objections and substantive engagement are not mutually exclusive. A parliamentarian can object to the process while still entering the room, asking questions and demanding better documentation.

There is nothing inherently contradictory about saying: I have concerns about this meeting, but I will attend because my constituents deserve answers.

That is particularly relevant when the subject includes Guyana’s territorial case before the ICJ and matters connected to the country’s foreign policy. Those issues extend beyond the immediate interests of any political party. They concern the state and the national interest.

The Opposition is, of course, entitled to scrutinise the government vigorously. It is entitled to disagree. It is entitled to demand information. It is entitled to challenge the President and his Ministers.

But scrutiny requires proximity to the decision-making process. One cannot simultaneously demand greater consultation and then decline an invitation to consult.

One cannot complain about insufficient answers while declining a forum in which questions can be put directly. And one cannot complain about being excluded from national conversations while voluntarily remaining outside the room when those conversations take place.

There is another worrying dimension to this episode. Guyana’s political conversation is increasingly being conducted through press statements, Facebook posts, livestreams and social-media exchanges. Social media has an important role in democracy, but it cannot become a substitute for Parliament, committee work and direct institutional dialogue.

A political disagreement conducted entirely through social media allows each side to speak to its own audience. A face-to-face parliamentary engagement requires something different: questions, evidence, explanations, rebuttals and, where possible, solutions.

That is the kind of political maturity Guyanese citizens should expect. I believe the opposition is increasingly interested in political grandstanding, politics of convenience, politics of bureaucracy and lacks the political maturity.

The meeting represented an opportunity not necessarily to agree, but to engage.

The Opposition could have challenged President Ali. It could have pressed him on the ICJ. It could have questioned the Third Country National Agreement. It could have raised economic concerns. It could have demanded supporting documents. It could have expressed dissatisfaction with the government’s answers. Instead, its members were absent.

The President’s meeting subsequently took place with members who attended, while the parliamentary opposition’s concerns were communicated principally through statements to the media.

This is a missed opportunity. Guyana does not need politicians to agree on everything. It needs politicians who are prepared to disagree in the room, where questions can be answered and positions can be tested.

Political maturity is not measured by how loudly one can condemn an opponent after the fact. It is measured by the willingness to sit across the table from that opponent and make the argument directly.

There will always be another press conference. There will always be another Facebook post. There will always be another statement but opportunities for direct dialogue on matters of national importance should not be squandered.

Perhaps, the opposition does not like those engagements because they do not possess an audience so they could not have a viral audience to conduct their ‘ghetto and gutter behaviour’ and market-vendor like politics. Sad!

References

1. President meets with foreign relations, economics parliamentary committees – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana — demerarawaves.com ↩
2. Guyana begins temporarily taking third country nationals from US – Demerara Waves Online News- Guyana — demerarawaves.com ↩
3. Nadir rejects WIN’s claim that questions over Ali meeting went unanswered | Guyana Standard — www.guyanastandard.com ↩
4. President Ali meets with Parliamentary Sub-Committee on Foreign Relations – Department of Public Information, Guyana — dpi.gov.gy ↩