Politicians and political parties have not shown themselves to be truly interested in fixing those deep constitutional problems that hinder the development and maturing process of the political infrastructure and culture. They are quite happy to live with dysfunctional systems and practices once they reap political advantage from them while they are in government. However, they scream loudest about the same when they are in opposition as the system and practices work against them. The most recent allegations against yet another Speaker of the House of Representatives are rooted in the fact of governments putting career politicians from their side into the Speaker's chair.
Therefore whether or not a Speaker is attempting to hold the balance between all the sides in the House, because he or she comes from the ruling party, the Opposition will always perceive a bias. Indeed, if there is not such a bias, the opposition party will create the impression of there being one as a means of gaining political mileage and sympathy. Much has been said about the balanced authority practised in the first independent Parliament by Speaker Arnold Thomasos. But those were different times and one would have to do the research to find out if in fact he was perceived to be biased against the Opposition. In more recent times, however, the allegations of bias against every Speaker of the House have resounded across the chamber of the Parliament.
As Leader of the Opposition, Basdeo Panday took aim at Barendra Sinanan. It eventually resulted in his suspension for a period of time when he refused to obey the direct instructions of the Speaker. The infamous case of Ken Valley and Occah Seapaul is well known. He too was suspended. Over the decades, post-Thomasos, the likes of Matthew Ramcharan, Nizam Mohammed, Occah Seapaul, Hector McClean, Rupert Griffith, Barendra Sinanan and Wade Mark have been the occupants of the chair. Without casting aspersions on any of this group of Speakers, they all had known loyalties to the ruling party which put them in office and so were fair target for the charge of bias. Mr Mohammed, Mr McClean, Mr Sinanan, Mr Griffith and Mr Mark came directly from the bowels of the ruling party of the day.
In the instance of Mr Mohammed, he was elected (selected really) by the ruling National Alliance for Reconstruction notwithstanding the fact of a 33-3 majority by the ruling party.
The issue was and continues to be the perception that with governing parties filling the chair of the Speaker with known supporters, elected and defeated candidates of the ruling party, they (the parties) are seeking to derive some political advantage from having one of their own in the chair. However, the reality is that the Constitution allows for such people to be placed in office and so the parties/governments could claim they are doing nothing unconstitutional. Similar situations arise in the appointment of several vital public institutions: the Police and Public Service Commissions, the Director of Public Prosecutions, the President of the republic. Mr Panday was scathing, to say the least, about Presidents Robinson and Richards, even though he had nominated and supported Mr Robinson.
The question that has to be explored is how should the elected representatives and parties of the people be allowed to govern in the interest of those who elected them but prevent the parties and their leaders from undermining all of the independent institutions of state? These are a few of the issues for debate on reforming the one-man Constitution of 1976. But even here the practice is to allow the very politicians who are always seeking advantage to dictate the nature and form of the reform.