Senate Debate Recap: Analysis of Conduct in the Chambers

I watched Monday’s Senate debate and was disgusted by the uncouth conduct of many on the government side.

Should you have doubts about my assessment, the live stream is there for viewing by all.

It was appalling to see people who carry titles and who project themselves as accomplished professionals and politicians display that degree of bad behaviour in those hallowed chambers.

Those who are doctors by profession or academia, those who were ambassadors and former ministers, those who claim to practise and preach Christian norms, those who profess to be legal luminaries and those who believe that because they held office outside of Barbados they have somehow arrived.

There was nothing revered about the conduct of the clergy. There was nothing diplomatic about the conduct of a former ambassador and envoy. There was nothing aspiring about the conduct of the one who leads business in that House. The outbursts and actions of a junior minister certainly don’t reflect our culture. And if we were to look closely at the parliament rules when another senator is speaking, a constitutional legal pro could easily be found “guilty as charged”.

They spoke loudly, heckled, attempted to distract and were generally disrespectful throughout the presentation of the lone opposition Senator Ryan Walters in the chambers. Much to his credit, the senator persevered seemingly unmoved and unbothered by the persistent efforts to interrupt him. His conduct should certainly be commended.

Even the mannerisms were offensive. One senator in particular at the end of making her “points of order” muted her mic and swung it aside in a very aggressive manner. With age and vast experience, one would think that this seasoned politician, known for her brutish manner, would be a bit more refined at this stage in life.

On about four occasions, the president told government senators to allow their fellow senator to continue. But the fact that he had to repeat himself shows he too was disrespected by them. Why didn’t he take more drastic action? Why didn’t he act more firmly with these renegades?

Monday brought back memories of instances where former opposition senator Caswell Franklyn suffered similar treatment during some of his contributions made in the Upper Chamber.

There are 12 government senators in the Senate of 21 people. They already have the advantage. Why then expend energy on bullying and targeting the one opposing voice? Is it possible that the two 30-0 mandates give those in government the impetus to act like only their voice or contributions matter?