There are times when we find Prime Minister Christie’s speeches, intriguing – intriguing from the point of view that he can take a few ideas and contort them in so many different ways that he ends up with a lengthy speech that gives the impression that he has developed many ideas about which he has had much to say. A reporter whose task it is to cut through the verbage discovers that although Mr Christie has delivered many words, his ideas can be condensed into a few paragraphs.
But these speeches also reveal much about Mr Christie, the man. In our opinion he certainly has a Hubert Ingraham complex – as though he is uneasy about being in the shadow of a strong and decisive leader.
He is also very anxious to cement himself in the nation’s hall of fame. How many times have we not heard from his own lips about his oratorical skills. And on Wednesday in the middle of haranguing Mr Ingraham for his non-appearance at the opening session of parliament, he paused mid-sentence to establish himself as the sole “father of the House” – a position he is apparently not willing to share with Mr Ingraham. A trifle that we are certain would not concern Mr Ingraham, but obviously it is of great concern to Mr Christie. And this is what he said:
“It’s the most scandalous experience I have had – and I am ‘Father of the House of Assembly’ – in fact I have served longer in this, in the parliamentary democracy, than the member of parliament for North Abaco (Mr Ingraham) even though there seems to be a suggestion from time to time that we both are ‘fathers’ of this democracy we have. Insofar as this democracy is concerned, I joined the Senate in 1974 – or was appointed to the Senate in 1974 – and became a member of parliament in 1977 – and I have not witnessed such an experience from a leader in a country of this kind in our entire history of parliamentary democracy. I have not read about it, I have not heard about it and I have not seen it.”
He was, of course, referring to the absence of Mr Ingraham and Opposition deputy leader Brent Symonette from Wednesday’s ceremonies for a new session of parliament.
Mr Christie has walked the halls of parliament long enough to have seen far worse sins committed against democracy than the nonappearance of two opposition leaders.
But as Mr Christie seems to be concerned with trifles, let’s return to the trifles.
The expression to which Mr Christie alludes is: “Father of the House”, not “Father of the democracy” as he would have it, nor even “Father of parliament.” And “Father of the House” means what it says. It refers only to the House of Assembly.
As Mr Christie and Mr Ingraham entered the House on the same day and at the same time in 1977, whether, Mr Christie likes it or not he will have to share the limelight with Mr Ingraham – history will record that they are both “Fathers of the House.”
“What is particularly wrong about this,” Mr Christie continued, “that this is the same leader who is now being reported in the press of saying that this side of the House – the Progressive Liberal Party – is a threat to parliamentary democracy because we have not answered certain questions in parliament. I ask all of us where is the greater threat to parliamentary democracy when on the prorogation and the summoning of a new parliamentary democracy the person who represents himself to be the alternative prime minister does not appear, does not come out; the deputy does not come out and they have not provided notice nor an excuse to the parliament, to the Speaker.”
Mr Christie is misleading Bahamians when he refers to members being summoned to a new parliament. They were not summoned to a new parliament. Members were summoned to a new session of a parliament that the Bahamian people elected in May 2002.
Parliament has a five-year life. During its life, parliamentary business is divided into sessions. Parliament is prorogued at the end of a session and reopens to a new session. It is dissolved at the end of its term for the election of a new parliament.
The FNM was elected for two terms. The party was elected the government in 1992. It prorogued the House in 1993 at the end of the first session and again in 1996. There was an election in 1997 when the FNM was returned to government. That parliament was prorogued in 1999. And 2002 was an election year when Mr Christie’s party was returned as the government.
January 31 this year was the first time that this parliament was prorogued – four years into its final year.
And so Mr Christie is wrong when he says that Messrs Ingraham and Symonette have missed the opening of a new parliament. They have missed the opening of a session of a parliament that is still in progress.
Editor, The Tribune – Nassau, Bahamas
