MANY citizens are frustrated by the fierce criticisms and sharp rhetoric currently displayed in Parliament. The common sentiment is that our representatives should “stick to the Budget” and abandon the vitriol. However, this perspective overlooks the fact that Parliament is an institution of ritual performance, much like our national celebrations or religious ceremonies.
As Michel Foucault famously explored in his work on “Governmentality,” political order is maintained through the “conduct of conduct.” This means that the rules of the institution shape how power is exercised. If we look across the globe, we see that violent conflict is often the result of people being unable to navigate or talk out their disagreements because these political institutions have broken down.
In Guyana, our parliamentary debates serves as a “structured engagement” governed by rules, norms, and a Speaker who maintains formal autonomy from the political fray.
The key to understanding these sessions is that they represent a ritualised substitute for what may otherwise be physical confrontations. As long as the talking continues, no matter how bitter it becomes, fighting is not seen as necessary. When the talking stops, the real danger begins. In this sense, parliamentary debate functions as a necessary proxy for violence, providing a psychological and social release for sectional conflicts.
Democracy is inherently messy because it requires us to talk out our differences. When we hear Senior Finance Minister Dr Ashni Singh, Minister Dr Vindhya Persaud, or Minister Priya Manickchand engaging in heated exchanges with opposition figures such as APNU’s Terrence Campbell, we are witnessing a conversation. It may be an unfriendly conversation, but as Pierre Bourdieu might suggest, it is a “symbolic struggle” that validates the institution itself.
In the context of Guyana, where racial tensions are a sensitive reality, it is vital to protect this space for discussion. If we do not allow these arguments to happen in an environment governed by rules, they may inevitably move to the streets, where rules are harder to enforce.
Physical conflict begins where the conversation ends.
Therefore, we should see these debates not as a distraction from governance, but as the very mechanism that preserves our social peace.
So let them talk!