The views and opinions expressed by the author(s) do not represent the official position of Barbados TODAY.
by C. William Antrobus B.A., M.A.
The dust has probably now settled on the Senator Caswell Franklyn episode in Parliament last week and a number of people have had their say on the matter.
Views ranged from the rabid political to the ridiculous; there was a general absence of analytical comment which took the occasion and Franklyn’s response to the occasion into critical consideration.
For example, there was an absence of discussion on the fact that there was a major diversion from the practice associated with joint meetings of the two Houses of Parliament.
Traditionally, the Two have come together for ceremonial occasions and to hear the Throne Speech at the beginning of a new parliamentary session; I cannot recall the two ever having come together to do “business”! That was the situation on this occasion.
Secondly, whenever the two have come together in a joint session, the hierarchy in the bicameral system has been observed; the Lower House ascends to the Upper House and the session, quite naturally, is presided over by the Presiding Officer of that Upper Chamber; that is understandable given the Westminster tradition which settles the principle that the Commoners should go up to the Peers in an act of traditional parliamentary deference when the hierarchy is respected.
However, we saw a reverse situation last week. In recent times, the Barbadian aphorism associated with the horse and cart has been referred to with justifiably worrying regularity; this was another example of an administrative absurdity of reversing the order by which decisions should be put into effect which was given parliamentary sanction without critical scrutiny.
The sight of Mr Speaker presiding over a session which included the Members of the Upper Chamber was a major aberration.
However, the crowning act of absurdity occurred when the observation was made by Senator Franklyn that there were no Rules in place to regulate the unusual session. That observation by the Senator was not open to any subjective analysis based on his tone of voice or general conduct; it had to be assessed on its validity; it was either a false claim which demanded rebuke by pointing him to the Rule that was indeed in effect, or there was need for the presiding officer to take consideration of the claim made by the Senator whose strident rebuke at the attempt to redress the problem was that the Rules could not be made while he was on his feet addressing the Chamber.
Unfortunately, prudence did not guide the response of the President of the Senate and Senator Franklyn, not wishing to be a participant in a perceived parliamentary charade sought and obtained permission of the presiding officer to depart from it.
No amount of personal vilification of Senator Franklyn for the stand he took should stand in the way of his claim and an assessment of the decision taken while the “business”of this unusual Sitting of Parliament was executed. The question of its validity must be raised; Senator Caswell Franklyn’s position must be examined by those interested in preserving our democracy and the Rule of Law.
