Order, Order: Restoring Dignity to Jamaica's Parliament

Jamaica's Parliament had a difficult week. The way forward is not to choose a side in the shouting, but to protect the institution both sides need.

Gordon House is more than a building. It is where a small nation with a proud democratic record argues out its differences in the open, by rules everyone has agreed to. When those rules give way, even for a few minutes after a sitting has ended, every Jamaican loses something.

The scenes on Tuesday 3 November travelled quickly. Within hours, Jamaicans in London, Toronto and New York were sharing clips of elected representatives confronting one another in the chamber. For those of us in the diaspora who defend Jamaica's democratic reputation abroad, it was a painful week to watch.

Yet the right response is not outrage at one bench or the other. It is a calm look at what went wrong, what lies beneath it, and how Parliament can recover its dignity.

What happened

On Tuesday, 3 November, the House of Representatives sat to debate an Opposition censure motion. Tabled by Anthony Hylton, it sought to censure the Government for not telling Parliament, before the United Nations vote on 28 October, that Jamaica would abstain on the annual resolution against the US embargo on Cuba. It was the first time since 1992 that Jamaica had not voted in favour.

The debate ended in protest. The Opposition says the Government used the Standing Orders to cut the debate short. The Government rejects that, and says the Opposition's conduct was the problem.

After the House was adjourned, as Speaker Juliet Holness left the chamber, a confrontation broke out between Manchester North Western MP Mikael Phillips and Kingston Western MP Desmond McKenzie. Colleagues from both sides stepped in to calm it.

The accounts differ:

• Mr Phillips has apologised for using an expletive and expressed regret for his conduct. He says he reacted after Mr McKenzie made an offensive reference to his late mother.
• The Jamaica Labour Party says Mr McKenzie was urging Mr Phillips to respect the Speaker, and that Mr Phillips's account is false. It is calling for sanctions against Mr Phillips and against Dr Angela Brown Burke, whose conduct towards the Speaker it also criticises.
• Opposition Leader Mark Golding says Mr Phillips took the high road by apologising, and has called on Mr McKenzie to apologise for the alleged remark.

Some of these facts are still disputed. Kingston Mouth does not pretend to know more than the footage and the public statements show.

The question that must not be lost

The danger now is that a few minutes of footage bury a serious constitutional question. How much should Parliament be told before Jamaica changes a foreign policy position it has held for 34 years?

Foreign Affairs Minister Kamina Johnson Smith has defended the abstention. She says Jamaica still opposes unilateral restrictions, but believes the annual resolution has not achieved its purpose. That is a legitimate view, and reasonable people can share it.

The Opposition's concern is also legitimate. The day before the vote, Parliament had debated Cuba's economic and humanitarian situation. Members argue that the House should have heard then that a change of position was under consideration. In a Westminster democracy, the right of the Opposition to question such decisions is not a nuisance. It is the system working.

Both things can be true. A government may change policy, and an Opposition may insist on being told. The proper place to settle that is a full debate, conducted with respect, in which every member who wishes to speak is heard.

One standard for both benches

The House's own Standing Orders are clear. Offensive and insulting language about members is out of order, and every member must conduct himself or herself in a fit and proper manner. Those rules apply equally to Government and Opposition, and to words spoken in anger as much as to actions.

Mr Phillips has done the right thing in acknowledging his reaction and apologising to the public. That deserves recognition. Owning a mistake quickly is a mark of a serious parliamentarian, and it sets an example others would do well to follow.

The same standard must apply to every allegation. If a remark was made about a colleague's late mother, it should be addressed with equal candour. Sanctions that fall on one side of the aisle only would not restore decorum. They would deepen the sense, already felt by many, that the House is a contest of numbers rather than a forum of equals.

Decorum also depends on confidence in the chair. Concerns about the neutrality of the Speaker have been raised for some time, and the Government side has firmly rejected them. Whatever view one takes, the health of Parliament requires that such concerns be heard and answered through proper channels, not left to build until they spill over.

A way forward

Jamaica has the experience and the goodwill to recover from this. A few practical steps would help:

1. Resume the censure debate in full. Let every member who wishes to speak on the Cuba vote do so. A complete debate takes the heat out of the procedural grievance and puts the argument back where it belongs.
2. Hear every account fairly. If any conduct is referred for review, both the Phillips–McKenzie exchange and the allegations about Dr Brown Burke should be examined on the full footage, with each member given the chance to respond.
3. Meet before the next sitting. A private meeting between the Leader of Government Business and the Leader of Opposition Business could agree simple ground rules, so that the next sitting is remembered for its debate, not its disorder.
4. Review how the House handles conflict. The Standing Orders date from 1964. A cross-party review of how disputes about the chair and the conduct of debate are raised and resolved would serve both sides, whichever is in government next.
5. Lead by example outside the chamber. Party statements that inflame rather than inform make the next confrontation more likely. Leaders on all sides can choose a calmer tone.

Restoring the House

Jamaica's democracy has survived far sharper tests than this one. It has done so because, in the end, both great parties have chosen the institution over the moment.

That choice is available again now. An apology has been offered. A serious policy question is waiting to be debated. What remains is for every member, on both benches, to remember that the people are watching, at home and abroad, and that the dignity of Gordon House belongs to all of them.

How can Jamaica's Parliament restore confidence in its debates? Share your views in the comments on Kingstonmouth.com.

Donovan Reynolds is a political commentator and trained diplomat.

Sources

• Jamaica Observer – Tensions flare as Phillips, McKenzie clash in Parliament
• Jamaica Observer – House in turmoil over Cuba censure motion
• Jamaica Observer – Phillips regrets House outburst
• Jamaica Observer – 'We will not be bullied': Golding clarifies events
• Jamaica Observer – JLP wants Phillips, Brown Burke sanctioned
• Jamaica Gleaner – Golding denies being pushed, calls for McKenzie to apologise
• Jamaica Observer – A call for the dignity of Parliament to return
• Jamaica Observer – Speaker under fire (April 2026)
• Parliament of Jamaica – House of Representatives Standing Orders