OPINION: Parliament and time-sharing, get it on

Last Updated on Saturday, 31 January 2026, 9:28 by Writer

By GHK Lall

One aspect of my thinking is why even bother with the budget debates, since the conclusion is foregone. Another aspect centers on the citizens who voted for one or the other opposition parties, and their interest in hearing what their standard bearers put out during the debates on the various issues provoked by the budget. Provocative they are, and they are many. Before even beginning the debates, there is a three-pronged challenge: who should be participant, how many of them from the two major opposition groups, and for how long should they be permitted to speak? The so-called seismic shift in local politics has brought these post-quake temblors that usher to newly turned ground. Literally.

Meanwhile, there is still another tight spot, and it is no less delicate. It is about how to address the tight situation where both the PNC and WIN want to ‘shadow’ a specific ministry. One party stands all alone, or do both, with time split. This is akin to, and trickier than, having a circle of in-laws living under the same roof, with space becoming increasingly congested and contested. Thinking of all four grandparents, ambience and all, and a couple of worthless brothers-in-law, a nosy sister-in-law, all huddled within the confines and comforts of four walls. In only writing about this, I am reeling, sweating, though none around. It is said that politics makes for inviting remarkable bedfellows. Locals had better get a new ed and a new head.

The PNC’s Ganesh Mahipaul, MP tabled a solution called proportionality. Simply stated, the two leading opposition parties split time, with some time and space allocated to Ms. Walton-Desir of FGM. The arithmetic has a certain logic, best for the circumstances. Discretionary selection has its value, but it’s minimal. Could be rejected as too partisan without a foundation of trust on which such efforts are built, with trust a domestic phantom. Endless bickering could be foretold with discretion. Everyone yearns for more a trusting environment, but the citizens to feed the development of such structures have migrated. Or kicked the can. The few still capable of trust, who may themselves be trusted, want no part of public life, or making any public contribution. Therefore, proportionality in respect of time and representation it is. Or should be the way out of the impasse. Principal administrative officer of the National Assembly, Mr. Sherlock Isaacs, intoned with wisdom that is simple, as it is sound: the opposition parties must work these issues out among themselves.

Can they? I hope so, think so. If not, all the time and resources employed to get to September 1 were wasted. Or, the budget debates just fell off a cliff, and brought a close to the formalities. Before they got started. For then, who would PPP Govt ministers be talking to, sparring with, coming down hard upon (for lack of preparation and conspicuous ignorance), if not themselves only. Budget superintendent (or field marshal) Dr. Ashni K. Singh would be left with the unappealingly desultory territory of the National Assembly transformed into a trackless, waterless desert. He wouldn’t even have to pause to take a sip of water from his designer flask. Water or vodka? I wouldn’t waste quality liquor on a desolate undertaking. Lonely he will be if WIN and the PNC can’t put their heads together, get their individual and combined program(s) off the ground, and on the road to parliament.

Whether I care or not about parliamentary debates means nothing. On the other hand, the scrum of Guyanese voters deserves better. Part of their ongoing tragedy has been tricky political leaders, trickier political groups, and the trickiest representations when the interests of Guyanese should be the paramount priority. Unexplained wealth accumulation, vacillation, obfuscation, deflection, and deception are what have been paramount across the board. For emphasis: PPP, PNC, APNU, and AFC. For the moment, WIN and FGM are on probation, are watched, will have to prove themselves.

I depart. Proportionality on representation in parliament has its pluses, one is a monopoly on what is practical and workable. Its weakness is when fractions and decimals come into play. The self-serving would have to be surrendered, self-sacrifices made. Guyanese have a good seat from which there is opportunity to study what their champions are made of, their true calling. Meantime, the PPP has the luxury of a bigger, grander dancefloor. It’s a wonderful world.