The recent incident of unparliamentary language escaping the lips of one parliamentarian and being broadcast live on our national airwaves has seen a consequent and expected apology.
But rueful Christ Church West Barbados Labour Party representative William Duguid has indicated that his offending outburst came out instantaneously in response to an acerbic comment aimed at him by a member on the Government benches.
We are not enamoured of this technique, so frequently misused by some members of Parliament, of hurling while seated unfavourable and uncomplimentary remarks at their opponents, and so not catching the Speaker’s eye. Still, we are bound to condemn out of hand the offensive language of Dr Duguid.
In a House of 30 members, when there is often much crosstalk, the presiding officer, unless blessed with the acute hearing of a jungle cat and the keen eyesight of a jackal, is often in some difficulty picking up offending remarks and identifying their authors.
He may therefore be unable to call upon the first speaker to withdraw an unflattering remark and thereby forestall its rejoinder – which in the Duguid case made it to the national airwaves.
In any event, a presiding officer is not supposed to hear asides; he hears only MPs on their feet.
So that a primary duty of all members is to observe the rules of the House of Assembly and so help to maintain order in the Chamber; for ill action may lead to sicker reaction.
As it was, Dr Duguid was provoked, but while provocation may well be mitigating, the calumny of the MP’s offence does not excuse it. Traditions hard fought for and duly won have made the Chamber the ground upon which honourable members can stand and speak freely and without fear of imprisonment or other penalty when representing the interests of their constituents.
No ordinary place
Parliament is no ordinary place, and our duty is to condemn breaches of the rules and traditions of that honourable Chamber whenever they occur, even when refuge may be sought in provocation.
Some Barbadians may empathize with the honourable member’s provocation, but two wrongs do not a right make. Naturally, Parliament will deal with this matter as it sees fit; but we could expect nothing less than that an apology will also be made on the floor of the Chamber by the honourable member; for it was in Parliament that Dr Duguid committed the offence.
But is there a teachable moment here? The incident occurred when the Chairman of Committees was presiding. The Speaker and the Deputy Speaker are officers, whose titles are seared in the public consciousness, but many there will be who have never heard of the Chairman of Committees and will wonder at his role in public affairs.
He is a presiding officer who takes the chair whenever the House is in Committee, which status it assumes whenever any bill is passing through the Chamber, and at Estimates for a full five days of debate.
His is a key role in our Parliament and we do not enhance the traditions of Parliament if we recognize such important officers and their duties only when some breach of the Chamber’s rules commands national attention.
This unfortunate Duguid incident ought to remind us of the need not only to have the public informed about what goes on in their Parliament, but also about who plays the leading roles therein.
It is, after all, the people’s Parliament – pure and simple!