The NDP – Time for change

One week ago, the opposition New Democratic Party (NDP) staged yet another of its boycotts of the sitting of the House of Assembly, for which it gained a none-too-credible reputation during the life of the last Parliament. The boycott was part of the continuing campaign by the NDP, which has been relentlessly pursued since last December’s general elections, based first on dissatisfaction with the election results, and now manifesting itself in opposition to two pieces of legislation.{{more}} One of these, the amendment to the Criminal Procedure Code, has already been passed by Parliament, while the other, to amend the Representation of the People Act, is currently before a Select Committee of the House.

Rather than attend the sitting of Parliament, the NDP organized a march and picket of Parliament by its supporters. It could not have been overly pleased with the turn-out, especially given the show of strength by the governing Unity Labour Party (ULP) on two successive days, only one week before, to celebrate that Party’s 10th anniversary of its accession to national office. Whatever the reasons for a less than impressive crowd, the NDP has certainly been provided with room for reflection. For, if the trend of decreasing numbers continues, the law of diminishing returns will certainly come into play.

The time has come therefore, for the Opposition to take stock and make a comprehensive review of its tactics. It cannot continue to be the “same old, same old”, again and again. As a Party in opposition, the NDP is perfectly entitled to oppose any policies or actions of the Government that it considers not to be in the national interest, but it must be careful not to seem to be simply oppositionist. It sometimes seems as though the Party’s leadership is either in awe of, or beholden to, some extremist, rabble-rousing elements with no clear strategy, but creating confusion in the vain hope that this will open the way for the Party’s return to office.

For some reason or another, the NDP has the knack of blowing its chances to advance even further, as a credible alternative to the ULP. There are several examples but I will confine myself to a mere few. Take the issue of constitutional reform to begin. Having displayed great maturity in supporting the process, thereby laying the basis of a national platform to reform, if not revolutionise, the entire constitutional and political set-up, the Party seemed uncertain how to handle concerns it had and differences with the process and the content of the proposed Constitution. It opted instead for short-term, opportunist political gain, ending up holding on to the soiled coat-tails of party founder Sir James Mitchell, and campaigning in fact, to keep the British hand-me-down Constitution.

The further down this road it travelled, the more it distanced itself from the progressive position it had originally adopted. The campaign soon degenerated into a mire of political backwardness, of which many in the leadership, who know better, should be roundly ashamed. Positions were adopted in favour of retaining the British monarchy and the Privy Council, in spite of Britain’s expressed desire to be rid of us out of their justice system. Even proposals to strengthen the hand of the Opposition and reduce the powers of the Prime Minister were rejected. Sadly, the backwardness and misinformation, feeding on low levels of consciousness and tactical blunders in advancing constitutional reform, paid off in a resounding “NO” vote in the referendum of November 2009.

The second example is the approach to the NDP’s opposition to the two legislative amendments. The concerns voiced by the NDP were to one degree or another shared by others in the society outside the party’s fold. Whatever the Government’s true intentions, either to prevent abuse of the Court or to clean up the Representation of the People Act, as it argued, the timing of the amendments, in the face of several court cases, seemed to persons, even partial to the ULP, to be ill-timed and appearing to be done with indecent haste. But the methods adopted by the NDP turned out to be counter-productive and alienating from persons who were prepared to listen to their concerns. When the Opposition’s campaign became an eclectic mix of “Kill the Bills” and removal of a party which had just won a national plebiscite, then it was inevitable that it would boil down to hard-core party supporters and some with axes to grind, of one sort or another.

The debacle in Parliament on March 3, again exposed deficiencies in the strategy. Having put forward a motion calling on the Prime Minister to withdraw the proposed legislation, the Opposition seemed unsure what to do next. The Prime Minister was let off the hook of having to respond, by the Opposition’s blatant disrespect for the Speaker. The PM should have been forced to announce that he is not withdrawing. He is in a position now where he can appear to be magnanimous, to be listening to the views of others. “Hurry bird don’t build good nest”, is an old saying that the NDP would do well to remember. Similarly, the outright rejection of the Christian Council’s proposed mediation, is to simple people like me, a serious political error. Again it makes the NDP look intransigent while the PM can claim to be open to compromise.

These are but a few of mistaken tactics which are not helping to advance the cause of the Opposition. The refusal to make maximum use of Parliamentary opportunities, whether in the form of live broadcasts or in ensuring the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) functions, is another example. But perhaps even worse, is the failure by the party’s leadership, to stop the constant abuse of citizens, not just ULP officials by NDP spokepersons on the electronic media. It does not mean that one is anti-NDP or pro-ULP because one voices an opinion contrary to that held by the Opposition. These vitriolic attacks are turning people off. Everyone is not like me, who couldn’t care how much in the gutter the denigrators go.

It is time for change, where the NDP is concerned. Whatever the virtues of the Gonsalves administration, it is in the national interest to have a viable, responsible, enlightened and visionary Opposition. To use a cricketing analogy, the stronger the bowling (Opposition), the more the batsman (Government) is forced to lift his game. The rabble-rousing and name-calling are getting us nowhere. In order to move from perpetual opposition to a Party of power, the NDP must build alliances, be prepared for dialogue, be open to criticism. One-sidedness is not helping. The shackles of the irresponsible, rabble-rousing clique, must be lifted off the NDP, to permit it to fulfill its sacred responsibility to the people of this country.

Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.