The motion is more politics than justice

May 23, 2014, By KNews, Filed Under Features/Columnists, Peeping Tom, Source

Parliamentary motions and resolutions are not binding on the government. Opposition parties the world over know that even where they succeed in having their legislatures pass such motions, there is no guarantee that any demands or calls for action contained in these motions and resolutions will ever be implemented.

While the ruling parties and ruling coalitions may ignore them, these motions and resolutions do serve important purposes, the foremost of which is to register displeasure or support for some action. The passage of motions and resolutions is a way in which political parties announce where they stand on certain issues.

Parliamentary records are historical records. They are usually kept for posterity and as public records can be used to assess the positions taken by the various political parties within the legislature. Thus, when called to account for the actions they took in relation to a particular matter, political parties have the option of pointing to the positions they adopted on that matter in the legislature.

The passage of such motions can also be used to pressure the government to undertake a certain course of action.  Political parties can make demands outside of the legislature, for example, to have commissions of inquiry into torture. And they can buttress their case by having the legislature pass motions to that effect. This strengthens their hands in making demands of the government, because they can gain political capital by accusing the government of ignoring the will of the legislature, as is the now familiar political refrain in Guyana.

The passage of motions and resolutions are equally a means of gaining political traction. Parties promulgating motions may do so to curry favour with specific interest groups and constituencies. These interests may have even lobbied the political parties to have these motions and resolutions passed. The opposition parties in Guyana succeeded in passing a motion calling on the government to look into the situation as regards former members of the Disciplined Services. Now regardless of its intention, this motion would certainly be pleasing to the large number of ex-servicemen and ex-servicewomen.

The passage of motions and resolutions are also the means through which parties represent their own interests within the legislature. Workers’ parties, for example, frequently pass motions and resolutions relating to the conditions of the working class. Motions and resolutions are ways of taking the struggles of workers or businesses to the legislature.

Most governments tend to ignore motions and resolutions passed by opposition parties and coalitions. But this does not negate their value.

This past week, A Partnership for National Unity and the Alliance for Change teamed up to pass a motion calling for a Commission of Inquiry into torture by members of the Guyana Police Force. The opposition parties want this inquiry to cover the period 2006 to the present. The government opposed the motion on the grounds that they felt the period covered should date back to Independence.

It is obvious why the government wanted a longer time frame. The opposition parties, by limiting the scope of the inquiry to the period when the PPP is in office, can use any adverse findings to indict the PPP regime of human rights violations. This has huge political capital.

The period covered by the motion also covers the tenure of the present Home Affairs Minister, who the combined opposition wishes to remove from office. But it dates back as well to that period when another person was Home Affairs Minister. The motion therefore has the potential to sully the record of the government and the present Minister of Home Affairs. You do not need a microscope or telescope to recognize this fact.

The motion passed this week also comes against the backdrop of the Rodney Commission of Inquiry, which is likely to expose criminal misconduct and torture of opposition supporters during the rule of the PNC. The combined opposition, by passing this motion this week, may be attempting to balance the historical record by demonstrating that similar atrocities are being committed under the PPPC. The motion therefore seems more about politics than about justice for the alleged victims of torture.

This is especially so since in relation to the recent allegations of torture, criminal charges were filed or recommended against those alleged to have been involved. In fact, in one case the Court awarded substantial exemplary damages. There has been no cover-up of the investigations into torture, even though these investigations have been protracted. Indeed, as this is being written, it is being reported that charges are likely to be proffered in relation to one case in which torture was alleged. But it is not yet certain whether the charges will relate to the alleged act of torture or to police brutality.

Why then in the face of these acts of torture being investigated, quite unlike in the past when many were not, would the opposition parties be calling for a commission of inquiry? Are they suggesting that the investigations and criminal charges be halted until the outcome of the Commission of Inquiry into these acts of torture? After all, what sense does it make to have ongoing criminal investigations into torture and at the same time to have a COI dealing with the same subject matter?

The only plausible answer is that the opposition parties are simply playing politics. The government should in turn also play politics and accede to the opposition’s demands for a COI into torture. There is nothing to prevent the government from having an inquiry into torture and extending the scope of the inquiry to cover that notorious period in Guyana’s history when suspects were allegedly placed to sit on ants’ nests.