A committee of the whole people

There is heated discussion on a daily basis, particularly via the air waves, on a number of matters affecting our society and people. Tune in to the various radio stations, from morning to night, or read the weekend’s papers, and you will get more than an ample sample of the wrath of our people on a wide range of issues – crime, the cost of living, price and availability of fertilizer, access to school books, the road, airport, you name it.{{more}} However even though some level of discussion goes on, attracting comments from people of almost all walks of life, it is generally not sufficiently focused, it tends to base itself on symptoms rather than root causes, and the reflection of the society often is partisan in nature. Thus not many solutions emerge, nor do we get national consensus as to how to tackle the problems identified.

While all this is taking place, at a macro level, strategic moves are being made which have a fundamental bearing on our future but which strangely never get the same degree of attention or focus. It may be that they are not “sexy” as babbling about the spate of rape cases or as politically appealing as bashing the airport project, yet they have great relevance to our development, and whatever the obstacles, every effort must be made to get as many people as possible to enjoin the debate on them.

In our parliament, there are generally two sides of the House, with each one committed to upholding the position (real or perceived) of their party and Leader on the matters brought before them. At times, though, Parliament sets up special Parliamentary Committees, with representatives from both sides, to make a detailed examination of a Bill brought before it. Sometimes the House, when it deems it so appropriate, constitutes itself into a Committee of the Whole House to deliberate on a Bill or issue down on the Order paper.

Perhaps this is an idea that we can borrow from Parliament in relation to some of the big strategic issues affecting the country as a whole. What about a Committee of the Whole People to make detailed examination of the controversial Economic Partnership Agreement (EPA), the proposed economic and political union in the south-eastern Caribbean (St. Lucia down to Trinidad and Tobago) and, lest we forget, the important Constitutional and Local Government Reform process.

The latter two matters seem to have been relegated to the back-burners after much effort at mobilizing input at the local levels and even among Vincentians living abroad. Official reports from the two bodies established by Parliament to spearhead the process have been handed in to the Governor General. In the case of Constitutional Reform, the Constitutional Reform Commission (CRC) has on several occasions met with the Parliamentarians and engaged in debate. While there has been consensus on some matters, others remain outstanding, especially on matters of civil society representation in Parliament.

Sadly, after both sides had laudably supported the reform of the Constitution, it appears that partisan politics is now becoming an obstacle to further progress, with the Opposition giving the issues of the controversial remarks of Lands and Settlement Minister Julian Francis (about “Syrian” voting), and the post of the Supervisor of Elections as reasons for refusing to co-operate further. In the case of the Local Government, the Opposition has from the outset had nothing to do with the process.

We must find a way out of this impasse and that way must be blazed by we the citizens, collectively. Our archaic and neo-colonial political architecture is badly in need of reconfiguration. All of that is epitomized in the political stand-off on Reform. That is why I am suggesting that we all get involved, and if we have to drag along our Parliamentarians, kicking and screaming though they must be, so be it. A Committee of the Whole People may be our best bet at arriving at national consensus on the way forward.

Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.