We should be one on the issue of reparations

Fri, Jun 06, 2014

The vast majority of Vincentians, whether living here or abroad, share a common history of colonial conquest and slavery.

Whether we descend from the Callinago and Garifuna people, or the Africans and indentured servants who were brought here, or even the Anglo-Saxon contingent, there is no denying that we were all affected by the colonial experience.{{more}} Of course, some groups were subjected to barbaric and inhumane treatment in the process, while other groups were the beneficiaries. Nevertheless, we, Vincentians, all were, and still are being affected in one way or the other from the experience.

That being said, it stands to reason that any call for reparations should be something we aspire to achieve together. What better manifestation of this then, than the unanimous agreement of the highest body of our land, the House of Assembly?

It would have been a tremendous benefit to our national will and any claim we make, had such unanimity been expressed when Parliament voted last Monday evening on a resolution in support of reparations. Although we can be proud that at least Parliament approved the resolution, that sense of pride has been somewhat diminished by the failure to achieve unanimity and the political divisions revealed on such a major issue.

The vote on such a matter should have reflected individual consciences, but ended up rent asunder by partisan political divisions. Opposition Parliamentarians abstained, even though, listening to the various contributions to the debate, one could conclude that Parliament as a whole unanimously supported the issue of reparations.

So what was the bone of contention? It all centred around Clause Four of the resolution which sought, inter alia, “to put on record its highest regard and commendation“ to Prime Minister Gonsalves “for his commitment to and determination in initiating the reparations conversation at the highest level of regional governmental authority….” This Clause proved to be the dividing line, when there should have been none.

Two comments spring to mind about this unfortunate development. In the first place, why do we as a people allow our personal opinions of Dr Ralph Gonsalves lead us into making him the centerpiece of all we say and do? Whatever his contribution to the reparations effort, and it is significant, the reparations claim does not revolve around Ralph Gonsalves, and whatever his racial origin, it has little bearing on his right to speak on our behalf.

Secondly, couldn’t Clause Four have been suitably reworded to allow for unanimous approval for the Resolution? We are assuming here of course, that the opposition to Clause Four was not just an excuse not to vote, and had it not been included, some other reason would not have been found to find fault with the motion. Surely, making an amendment to the motion would have been worth the unanimity, given the enormity of the issue.

Both sides undoubtedly can defend their positions, but in the long run, this is not about praising or burying Caesar, it is about national and regional reclamation.