SOME members of civil society believe the Government erred in halting the business of the nation when its parliamentarians walked out of the House after taking offence to Opposition Leader Mark Golding’s criticism of the appointment of Speaker of the House Juliet Holness during his budget debate presentation on Tuesday.

The House was left without a quorum and so proceedings could not continue.

They believe, however, that while a valid concern was raised by the Opposition about the possible conflict of interest in the spouse of Prime Minister Andrew Holness being elected as the House Speaker, the manner in which the comment was framed and the subsequent furore in the House was not justified.

According to Executive Director of Jamaica Accountability Meter Portal (JAMP) Jeanette Calder, the comments of the Opposition leader was a valid concern and did not rise to the level of warranting a walkout on the part of the Government.

“We note, however, that it could be reasonable to say that the prime minister’s decision to put the nation’s business as secondary to defending the reputation of the Speaker might be supporting the idea that it is not a good idea for the spouse of the leader of the country to be the Speaker,” she told the Jamaica Observer on Wednesday.

“JAMP believes that were the Opposition leader’s statement a criticism of just the Speaker of the House, we think it’s quite possible that the prime minister would not have chosen to walk out. It is quite possible that because it is personal, that it led to the nation’s business becoming secondary and the Government walking out on something as important as a debate on the nation’s budget…So we’re disappointed,” she said.

She said this development brings into light the question of whether the relationship between the leader of the legislature and the leader of the executive is hampering the work of the nation.

Calder noted, however, that her organisation does not accept the Opposition’s explanation that it was honouring tradition and convention as an adequate justification for not objecting to the House Speaker’s nomination in September last year.

“JAMP’s position is that we think it’s inadequate that the Opposition would not have objected when the recommendation was made by the prime minister. The Opposition’s argument that they were respecting tradition and convention is woefully inadequate a reason to put forward as a basis for accepting direction from the Government that MP [Member of Parliament] Holness be promoted to Speaker of the House.

“We do believe, however, that the Opposition reserves the right to change its mind. Many citizens, including JAMP, did not object. JAMP’s position is that she had performed creditably as the Deputy Speaker; however, we felt that what was important was performance and that focus should not necessarily be the matter of relations but performance, and from where JAMP sat, MP Holness had performed creditably and commendably as a Deputy Speaker whenever she was called upon so to do,” she said.

Calder further noted that just like the Opposition, JAMP has some grave concerns, the most important one being the treatment of reports in the House from the Auditor General and the Integrity Commission.

“The decisions on some of the rulings are cause for concern and we think it’s quite reasonable for the country to revisit whether or not that was a wise appointment,” she said.

“We think it is fair for the country to revisit the wisdom of having a Speaker of the House as the spouse of the leader of Government,” she said.

“We’re not inviting anybody’s removal, we’re saying we have to revisit the question and contemplate and we as a people make a decision,” she said.

Also expressing disappointment with what transpired in the House on Tuesday, social policy researcher and analyst Carol Narcisse stressed that both sides of the political divide need to remember that “they are leading a nation and the business of the nation should always come first”.

“If there are sharp differences, there are ways to deal with those sharp differences in the House, and according to Standing Orders and so on. So they need to use the rules they have available to them; they need to conduct themselves as if they are mature adults running a whole country and setting a tone for an entire country — an entire country with a history of partisan division…What we do not need is a childish squaring off between the two sides every chance they get,” she said.

Narcisse said that while the Opposition sees the proximity of the relationship between the head of the Government and the head of the Parliament as problematic and not the desired situation, “the Opposition leader has to understand that there is a way in which one is going to have to raise issues with a view to having constructive debate and discussion and less about a manner that generates the kind of scenario that we saw play out”.

She argued, however, that while the Opposition leader, at worst, was clumsy in how he raised the specific comment, “the context that was laid out is definitely a context for which we should be vigilant and concerned — the significant potential for a conflict of interest in favour of protecting the interests of the party over the interests of the wider nation”.

“There…is a legitimate need for us to have this discussion based on actions, not on supposition, not on hypotheticals. For example, the former Speaker sought to change the means by which Integrity Commission reports get to be tabled and, therefore, get to public attention. There was no apparent good reason for seeking that change. We subsequently came to realise that, that Speaker had been named in a report. So the proximity of her action and her naming was way too close for comfort. And then the new Speaker doubled down on that shift. And it’s a shift in the opposite direction of us becoming more and more transparent and in a direction of us having less and less access to information. So that’s worrying,” she said.

Narcisse said the leader of the Opposition ought to have indicated that his side had endorsed the appointment, but they have concerns as the performance of the Speaker has progressed and highlight the areas that they are concerned about. “That would have been a very different approach,” she said.

Narcisse stressed that the nation needs mature leadership with the highest level of emotional intelligence and sensitivity and which puts the interests of the nation first.

“Maturity means you are capable of examining difficult — uncomfortable sometimes — issues and ensuring that the business of the nation, as far as is possible… not get interrupted over matters that can be discussed and settled,” she said.

She noted that members of both sides of the aisle must ensure that they deal with any animosities, any divisive tone, because that then spills over into the national discourse going into the next general election.

“Going into the next election we definitely need both sides of the House to ratchet down the sort of divisive tone and ratchet up a tone that says, ‘These are our policies, this is our vision, this is our plan, these are our concerns that we believe the nation needs to be paying attention to,’ but be mindful of the fact that we have several months to go into an election, and they’re both hotly contesting and vying for the public’s attention and how they do it is going to matter,” she said.