Our Readers' Opinions
December 11, 2009

Who lost the battle of the referendum?


Editor: Someone has said that democracy is a state of mind, and that it is of and for the majority, as well as of and for the minority. The result of the referendum, though mindboggling, is an exercise of this democracy.{{more}}

I am still not too sure how much more the advocates of the “yes” project could have done. I speak particularly of Prime Minister Gonsalves and Parnell Campbell QC. How then could the results be so disastrous?

Undoubtedly, the people have spoken. But can we say that on this eventful occasion the voice of the people was the voice of God? The question arises: Did the people avail themselves of the knowledge which was forthcoming from those who propagated the truths and benefits which are contained in the proposed constitution?

In my opinion, their decision to vote “no” was based on the untruths which “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” spewed out on their platforms and other venues. I venture to say that God loathes willful ignorance and deception. I would further state that the Queen’s Royal Opposition was disloyal to the people of this country and to their conscience.

In Sir James’ statements in his booklet “Response to the St. Vincent an the Grenadines Constitutional Proposal”, page 9, he states: “While I sympathize with the frustration of the opposition, I regret that our New Democratic Party withdrew from the exercise. My position would have been carry on to the end….” The NDP’S winning at the polls is, therefore, quite undeserving, and it may very well be the demise of the New Democratic Party which I have dubbed – based on Sir James’ statement above – The New Drop out Party.

Panelist Rose and Cummings in their comments kept mentioning about divisiveness, and several times the word arrogant. Although they did not single out anyone, I presume that they were primarily referring to Prime Minister Gonsalves. Rose even hinted, maybe it is more accurate to say, that he called for pressure to be brought to bear to call for fresh elections. Is he suggesting a vote of no confidence in the government? I am afraid that Mr. Rose with his punditry has not assessed the political sagacity of the P.M accurately. Have we not left him the same power?

At no time did the panelists mention the foul play exercised by the “No” advocates. Did they not know of the one hundred ($100.00) dollar bills which were printed and circulated with the Prime Minister’s face on it? What a dastardly act!

The referendum is now history, as is the battle between the Caribs and the English, but the question remains – Who lost the battle of the referendum? This question may linger long with us. It deserves an answer. Let me hasten in my closing remarks to seek answers to this question by stating that the “victory” gained by the “No” campaigners is pyrrhic – “victory gained at too great a cost.”

Concerned Citizen