BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – THE old African saying, “Monkey see, monkey do”, holds true not only to children’s behaviour but adults’ too, and some people believe it is the foundation upon which cultures, traditions and moral values are built and passed from one generation to another.
Behaviour can be defined as the way a person behaves toward other people and, by extension, it is the actions or reactions of a person in response to internal or external stimuli.
While in some quarters behaviour is believed to be innate, it is perceived by others to be learned. However, many social scientists posit that it is a phenomenon that incorporates both learned and innate.
Human behaviour is influenced by many factors, and among them are culture, genetics, ethics, attitudes, authority, emotions, coercion and leadership, and it is affected by social norms, behavioural control and attitude.
From this backdrop, I would like to highlight a growing concern of some law abiding citizens and residents of St. Kitts and Nevis.
There have been numerous complaints and adverse comments about the behaviour displayed by many of our young people. Politicians, religious leaders, notable organisations and many other officials in public life have bemoaned their behaviour, noting it is an aberration from the moral values set by our ancestors. They also blame parents and guardians; yet we have seen minors lewdly gyrating in the streets to the music of bands and Hi-fi sound systems at many national events in the presence of adults who were there as supervisors. The 2008/9 National Carnival’s Las Lap was testimony to this fact.
Children do not make guns and they do not import them. They do not import cocaine and they do not plant marijuana. These things are done by adults and children emulate them! They also emulate politicians and view many of them as role models, which brings me to the point of discussion – “Should there be a Code of Conduct for parliamentarians?”
Caribbean politicians are known for hurling unsavory remarks at their opponents and their use of character assassination and mud-slinging, especially during election campaigns. This behaviour, to a very high degree, has been traditionally accepted by party supporters, but it is distasteful and many people believe it should not be allowed in our Parliament.
Over the years, especially 2007 and 2008, our politicians’ behaviour in Parliament has left much to be desired and it has not been a good example for junior parliamentarians, in particular, and young people as a whole.
Debates in Parliament are broadcast live on radio and television and are also disseminated to the public through the print media. This therefore means that whatever is said and done at these debates will be heard, seen and read by the listening, viewing and reading public. And media practitioners have a duty to inform and educate the public on all events and issues that will or may affect their lives.
In 2007 the President of the Nevis House of Assembly had ordered a member of that august body to apologise to another for name calling, which has had a negative effect on the recipient’s character. This incident was broadcast and published by the media and, recently, it was posted on You Tube causing more damage by an errant parliamentarian. In 2008, another incident occurred during the 2009 Nevis Budget Debate when a member labelled another with a number of derogatory names.
The recipient however took the opportunity during the 2009 Federal Budget Address on Wednesday, December 17 to challenge his Parliamentary colleagues to temper their discourse to and about each other, both within and without the Hon. House. He also acknowledged his own culpability in this matter but stressed that parliamentarians, as “the leaders in this country”, need to behave better.
Parliamentarians are legislators and monitors of government’s policy as well as custodians of the public’s will and conscience as elected representatives of a nation. As the decision-makers of policies, governmental plans and budgets, parliamentarians are the key players in deciding on legislation deriving from decisions made at certain fora. They also create, amend and ratify laws.
Parliamentarians are servants of the people and their conduct must be honourable and exemplary to the rest of society. It is therefore imperative that a Code of Conduct be implemented for parliamentarians in order to alleviate misconduct, disrespect for each other and also for them to set examples of statesmanship.
It is said that codes of conduct are not merely cudgels; they are guidelines for proper behaviour, and behaviour may affect the public’s perception of propriety. They provide a rationale for action, which, with time, will become second nature to parliamentarians and can provide the foundation for the development of honourable actions. They can also be used to discipline errant Members of Parliament.
According to Lon Fuller, an American philosopher of law, a legal system or any system of rules or prescriptions that would guide behaviour and set standards for acceptable conduct (such as a code of conduct or a system of law) must meet eight necessary criteria if the system is to be workable.
The eight criteria Fuller posited are:
• There must be rules or laws that ground evaluation of action rather than ad hoc evaluation;
• The rules must be published;
• The rules cannot be made retroactively;
• The rules must be understandable;
• The rules should not be contradictory;
• The rules must be within the power of the citizens to obey them;
• The rules must maintain a degree of stability through time; and
• The rules, as announced, must be in agreement with their actual administration.
A consultant, Dr. Andrew Brien, in his research on “A Code of Conduct for Parliamentarians?” agreed with Fuller’s criteria. He however stated that “a further difficulty when implementing a code of conduct for parliamentarians is that in order for the public to accept that the code will be, and is, effective and for parliamentarians to accept that the code is administered impartially and thereby have reason to support it, a code must be administered independently and transparently of the political context in which it operates”.
He also pointed out that all these considerations suggest a number of desiderata, in addition to Fuller’s eight, that would guide not only the content of a code for parliamentarians but also the manner of its implementation.
Dr. Brien also suggested 12 conditions that a code of conduct designed for parliamentarians should satisfy if it is to be effective.
He said the code of conduct should aim to:
• foster trust in Parliament, parliamentarians and the system of parliamentary democracy;
• promote the functioning of Parliament;
• respect the operation and status of Parliament as an institution;
• be capable of being honoured, and in fact, actually work;
• refocus public attention from the conduct of parliamentarians and their ethics and place it on policy and deliberation;
• avoid litigation about powers of the code and interpretation; improve Parliament’s position as the creator of law and as a check on the Executive;
• be open yet allow for the protection of privacy;
• allow for knowledge and acceptance of the code by parliamentarians and citizens;
• have stable, fair, public enforcement mechanisms;
• fit within an existing culture of discipline mechanisms; and
• be, and be seen to be, impartially administered.
Many countries, the world over, have implemented Codes of Conduct for their parliamentarians, and among them is England. Since St. Kitts and Nevis is a former British colony and a member of the British Commonwealth, and while its Head of State is still responsible to the British Monarchy, it is therefore suggested that the powers that be emulate the ‘Mother Country’ and legislate a Code of Conduct for our parliamentarians.
