When will it all end?
31.MAY.11
The continuing impasse in the House of Assembly between the Opposition and the Speaker seems to be never-ending. In the process, not only is one of our countryâs most important institutions and its proceedings in ever greater danger of being brought into disrepute, but there are clear indications that the stand-off is negatively impacting on the conduct of the Peopleâs Business.{{more}}
Serious matters of national concern are being sacrificed on the altar of self-righteousness and inflated egos. Who is right and who wrong, seems, in our flawed political thinking, to be the paramount issue at stake.
Having said this, there appears to be merit in the charges made by the Opposition, and its demands that the Speaker make definitive rulings on the two matters raised – whether the Attorney General was entitled to vote on the election of the Speaker of the House, and, secondly, whether the Prime Minister did make certain statements relating to men âin the hillsâ. The Speaker has postponed making such rulings and, when the House met last Tuesday, OECS Union or not, the Opposition was determined to have the matter settled.
In the circumstances, is it too much to ask that the Speaker simply make the requisite rulings, so that we can all move ahead with much more fundamental matters? Does the Honourable gentleman, by further procrastination, not appear to be giving justification to the claims of the Opposition? Already, there is a history of mistrust on the Opposition benches where fair conduct of the Speaker is concerned, to the extent that calls have been made for the Speakerâs resignation. Are we not making the situation even worse?
On the other hand, Her Majestyâs Loyal Opposition needs to take a hard look at its tactics when facing such challenges.
It has been all too willing to abandon its responsibilities in favour of sterile boycotts. The Opposition is an important part of our Parliamentary democracy and can play a vital role in helping our fledgling nation to chart its way forward. Avoiding debate on such major issues as constitutional reform (in the previous Parliament) and now, the Treaty of Basseterre, is nothing but selling the nation short. The views of the Opposition are critical to shaping national consensus in such circumstances.
We may agree or disagree on the conduct of the Speaker, but without abandoning that fight, could the Opposition not engage on an issue which, if it assumes office, would be binding on its own administration? How could Parliament be deliberating on such a major issue and the representatives of almost half of the population abandon their responsibility to help to guide the nation? Are we saying that whether the Speaker is wrong or right, whether he displays bias or not, is more important than the further integration of small-island states? Or should it take precedence over a debate on freedom of movement in the Eastern Caribbean?
We humbly beg to disagree. Regional integration is not some choice that we may or may not make, or on which we can procrastinate any further. It is an historical imperative, the only way forward for us all. We are bound to have political disagreements, but these must not be allowed to stand in the way of the political, economic and social advancement of all of our people.
Please, let us restore sanity to our Parliament so that it can function best, as it ought to do, in the interests of all of our people.
Comments
