I AM shocked and appalled at the quality and substance of this year’s budget debate. 2026 will go down in history as the year in which the parliamentary standards dropped to the lowest level.
It was at such a vile level that I had to turn briefly away from the parliament to reset myself.
The 13th parliament, honestly, was turned into a busy ‘common’ marketplace. In this marketplace, there was chaos, confusion and drama being sold. The buyers seemed to be mostly young and new parliamentarians. The behaviour of some of the older MPs was equally worrying, as they too seemed to dabble in both sides, taking dirty and obnoxious positions in relation to each other.
Throughout the five days of debate, there were a couple of parliamentarians whose lights shone so brightly, it reminded me of why I fell in love with politics, public administration, public policy, communication, research and philosophy.
First, the Minister of Governance and Parliamentary Affairs, Gail Teixeira, did a fantastic presentation-style debate that was gripping and a lesson in politics. It was masterful the way she commanded the parliament chamber and the attention of government and opposition members.
She schooled Dr David Hinds on understanding history, while giving a class on how to debate to the younger parliamentarians. She, for me, is the best in the 2026 debate that took place last week.
Minister within the Office of the President with Responsibility for Finance, Dr Ashni Singh, came in second as his debating was entertaining, masterful and very strong. He displayed a very classy intelligence during the debate, right down to the last feisty moment when he unleashed the beast, it would seem, on the opposition.
Led by Prime Minister Mark Phillips, Attorney General and Minister of Legal Affairs, Anil Nandlall; Minister of Education Priya Manikchand; Minister of Culture, Youth and Sport, Charles Ramson; Minister of Agriculture, Zulfikar Mustapha; Minister within the Ministry of Housing, Vanessa Benn and Minister within the Office of the Prime Minister with Responsibility of Public Affairs, Kwame McCoy and Minister of Amerindian Affairs, Sarah Browne, were all very good in defending the government and their portfolios.
James Bond, Minister within the Ministry of Culture, Youth and Sport, Steven Jacobs, and Thandi McAllister reached the top of the debate, which was entertaining, spirited, good and unmatched as parliamentarians. They surpassed my expectations.
Bond told the APNU MP Ganesh Mahipaul, “Sit down…You’re my son…”, and Browne—————– told the opposition, “President Irfaan Ali is the people’s choice. And if you have a problem with that, cry a river, build a bridge and get over it!”
WIN Member of Parliament Odessa Primus was the person to watch as she delivered food for thought in a very serious, dramatic, yet comedic manner, telling the government benches, “things suh hard in this country.” She upstaged WIN Member of Parliament Vishu Panday and Tabitha Sarabo-Halley, who delivered an emotional speech which called for the government to put the people first by investing more in health and elderly care.
But Primus gets away with several glaring faults because she was entertaining. To professionals, politicians and some within the culture, youth and sport industry, the MP was misled, misinformed, and misguided when one considers the truth and facts about sport, culture and youth in Guyana.
The other WIN MPs read their presentations, and at times, Primus’s loud and distasteful behaviour overshadowed them. She might have thought she was protecting them against the heckling Minister McCoy and others were doing, but it caused the public to realise how dense and daft many of WIN’s MPs were, even with their closely followed CHAT GPT and AI-generated scripts.
Opposition Leader Azruddin Mohamed, turned out to be a big disappointment if I am to be objective and serious. Despite it being his first time, he was a slave to his carefully written and vetted script. And, when he was not reading, he hurled insults and took personal jabs at the government MPs. I must point out that when he insulted and sought to heap shame on Teixeira, I was boiling up with anger, but soon after the shouting and faces in defence of Teixeira were enough to tell him it was in bad taste.
He clearly did not know any of the issues which he raised throughout his speech, which I suspect his sister, Hana Montana, no, Hana Mohamed wrote. It was uncomfortable watching him speak, almost unfortunate that there was no teleprompter to rescue him. His weak but glossy performance proved that he cannot be classed with the weakest of the former opposition leaders and presidents of Guyana.
Donald Ramotar, David Granger, Desmond Hoyte, Robert Corbin, Janet Jagan, and Joseph Harmon did not like the cameras and public speaking, but the nation could not tell whenever they delivered. Mohamed was bluffing, and he knows it.
Reading out what a WIN manifesto would do for the people is not smart at all. Mohamed knows that the people discarded WIN at the polls in September and sent WIN to prove itself in opposition.
There were no bright stars in APNU last week, but Sherod Duncan, Juretha Fernandes and Saiku Andrews stole the show.
Perhaps the worst leader and most disappointing parliamentarian who graced the 13th Parliament, in my opinion, was Terrence Campbell. He was too emotional and ignorant of parliamentary customs, norms and practices, despite owning Erskine May’s “Parliamentary Practice Book.
He was boisterous, raucous and totally irrational at times. He got riled up whenever Minister Singh was addressing the parliament and had an obsession, it would seem, with Minister Manickchand because he tried to ‘shade’ and insult her. Mohamed should know by now that universally, parliamentarians think insults are the arguments employed by those who are in the wrong. It’s the last strike of a drowning politician who is seeking the relevance and validation of the House and country.
The purpose of this debate was to be prepared and not to read well-written speeches or rehearsed lines. It was a debate about portfolios and what was in Budget 2026 for people, and what was left out of the budget. It was to be a contest where the MPs would compete to prove their worth and represent their constituents.
Instead, it turned out to be a circus and a shouting match for some. At times, the heckling turned into a diatribe of insults and personal attacks. I am truly disappointed in the level of politics, which appeared puerile and petty. We must do better in parliament.
As parliamentarians, they must come up with better arguments for the debate, which Guyanese could not find on ChatGPT and AI.
It seems as though the parliamentary debates are going down the wrong road, and the speaker should not take this development lightly.
After all, debate is combat, and one’s words are one’s weapons. One does not have to raise one’s voice during a debate, as Campbell and the other WIN MPs did. One must raise the quality of one’s argument. If the goal was understanding and attaining progress in government services, then one must argue and persuade the government to change its course of intended action.
Robert A. Heinlein said, “You can sway a thousand men by appealing to their prejudices quicker than you can convince one man by logic.” And that’s why the WIN/APNU opposition failed.
Their luck is running out. I think more and more, the Guyanese public will see them for just who they are. They are just masking the reality, and the debate has some daunting truths. WIN’s grab at power is convenient and temporary. It will be its own undoing.
In the end, the Men (good debaters) met face to face with the mice (poor debaters).
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Guyana National Newspapers Limited.