Relationship between Speaker and Parliament

Journalists must be aware, of the British example, where the speaker resigns from his or her party on election and on completion of their term in the Chair are elevated to the House of Lords. There is a body of suggestion that if we do not follow suite, the system that this House of Representatives has adopted is of a "lesser" quality and the cause of rising problems.

The correct answer to ask in terms of the Speaker - Parliament relation is of course not whether or not the incumbent to the role belongs to any of the parties represented in the House, but rather than in the execution of the duties of Speaker, whether or not he is diligent, skilful and knowledgeable. Impartiality, albeit important, is but one of the considerations. And this that is causing much debate.

But let us ensure that if anyone who wishes to raise an issue on the Speaker in terms of the manner in which he has carried out his responsibility as Speaker - and if they want to (ab)use their rights as Members of Parliament to do so - it should be done in terms of the entire spectrum of the Speaker's decisions and actions and through a substantive motion. We cannot allow to be drawn in as silent participants in a 'secretive process' shaped by the flawed interpretation of a specific incidents by the leaders of the UNC. In the history of this Parliament such behaviour will be interpreted as tacit condoning of a hatched job by a men with an over-inflated ego of himself and his role in history.

It is the lesser ones in our midst who through innuendo, suggestion and half-baked presentation of arguments that have more recently been trying to cast dispersions on the man appointed Speaker, with character, integrity and who has brought dignity and decorum to the institution of Speaker. The Oppositions contends that this is far from the realm of truth.

I want to end my comments in terms of the relationship between the Speaker and Parliament by cautioning that we must always be very clear when we attack the Speaker, whether we are able to contain the damage inflicted to the person, or whether we are not systematically (albeit sometimes unintentionally) undermining the institution itself. Worse of course is when we walk mercilessly over an individual, pretending that he/she is the problem, but full-well knowing that it is the institution that is the actual target and that needs to be undermined in order to achieve life long petty personal ambitions that are being frustrated for some through the democratic process.

A Colourful Past

The history of Speakership dates back to the earliest parliaments of Great Britain. The first person to be called the Speaker was Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1377. In those days the Speaker's job was to tell Parliament the monarch's wishes and, in turn, to advise the monarch of Parliament's resolutions. If these resolutions angered the monarch or threatened the monarchy's power, which they often did, the monarch sometimes took revenge by killing the Speaker. In parliamentary history at least nine Speakers died violent deaths for telling kings and queens news they didn't want to hear. Some historians even think that the original purpose of the opening procession was to provide Speakers with bodyguards to protect them from harm as they entered the Assembly Chamber. Although early Speakers in Great Britain were the mouthpieces of Parliament, they were not always the servants of Parliament as they are now. In fact, the first Speakers were appointed by the monarch, not by Parliament. The Speaker's role changed as the parliamentary system evolved. Parliament first came into being because people resented being taxed and having no control over how the monarch spent their money. Over many centuries monarchs empowered Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, to levy taxes, spend tax dollars, and make laws. Due to that shift of power, the Speaker's loyalty soon shifted from the monarch to the House of Commons. In 1629 King Charles I ordered Speaker Sir John Finch to adjourn a session of the House. When Speaker Finch rose to obey the king's order, angry Members of Parliament tried to force him to remain in the chair, reminding him that he was supposed to be their servant, not the king's. Speaker Finch and Charles I won that dispute and dissolved Parliament, but 13 years later, when the United Kingdom was on the verge of civil war, Charles barged into the Chamber and demanded the surrender of five members opposed to his policies. Speaker William Lenthall refused, saying, “I have neither eyes to see nor tongue to speak in this place but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here." He was telling the king in no uncertain terms that the Speaker served Parliament and Parliament only. That moment was a turning point in the history of Parliament for it helped to establish the Speaker's independence from the Crown. By the end of the 17th century the Speaker was an appointee of Parliament and not of the monarch.

---

Photo of Westminister by Swamibu