Political divisions dragging us down

So much has been said since the aborted budget debate in the House of Assembly last week that I will limit my own comments and move on to wider, related issues. However, I must join with those who expressed both their disappointment and their condemnation of the failure on the part of 19 of the 21 Parliamentarians, on both sides of the House who sat glued to their seats and tight-lipped even as the Speaker begged for further contributions from the MPs following the presentations by the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition.{{more}}

This deprived us of the alternative perspective of the Opposition Parliamentarians as well as more detailed explanations from Ministers on their respective ministerial programmes. Thirteen elected Parliamentarians turned their backs on the opportunity to address constituency issues, a clear abdication of their responsibilities, while the public, looking forward eagerly to the inaugural Budget contributions of the new Senators, Thomas, Browne and the young Gonsalves, could only feel cheated. However much aggrieved the Opposition felt at the tactics of the Government’s side, it was inexcusable not to engage and put forward its views.

The political games which lead to such farces are unfortunately viewed in some quarters as “political strategy” and each side has attempted to blame the other for it. But a bit of common sense and a demonstration of maturity and “country before party” would have avoided the regrettable outcome. Sadly, it is unlikely that either side would heed the negative comments of much of the public.

The deep political divisions, the divisiveness promoted by the warring political tribes are a product of a political system which is as irrelevant as the monarchy is anachronistic. This was extensively discussed during the constitutional reform process of 2003/9 and measures to address it were mooted and proposed. Unfortunately, the same political tribalism and the Polyphemus-like fixation on general elections overshadowed the process and we ended up where we were before we embarked on the constitutional discussions. The new, though imperfect constitution, with the omission of some of the more fundamental proposals, was rejected in the November 2009 referendum.

Since then, the inadequacy of our present constitutional arrangements and the political system emanating from it, have been exposed time and again. The trench dividing the two political tribes grows wider as the stakes in the ‘winner take all’ game get higher. Almost every sphere of our economic, social and political life is affected negatively and we are all the worse because of it.

The latest row over the handling of the crisis caused by the Christmas floods is yet another example of how deep this trench warfare goes. It is tragic that in a crisis like this we should be having the lingering bickering about political cooperation in the national effort. As a result we have the Government leading the national effort while the Opposition goes its own way pledging, in the words of the Opposition Leader, that distribution of any supplies it mobilizes, will only be through the emergency organisation, NEMO, “over my dead body.”

Perhaps rather than offer criticism, it would be well to look back at the experiences in national cooperation following the 1979 eruption of the La Soufriere volcano. Then too, there was political division sharpened by the approach to national independence taken by the then Milton Cato administration. True, the animosity at that time was child’s play compared with the rabid political hostility of today, but it was strong enough to cause parliamentary opponents of the Cato administration, led by Ebenezer Joshua and Sir James Mitchell to end up opposing independence itself.

By contrast, other political forces on the “left”, YULIMO and the People’s Democratic Movement (PDM), while strongly critical of the selfish, partisan approach of the Labour Party, maintained a principled support for the march towards independence. They avoided narrow opportunism and never took their eyes off the national goal of the achievement of independence.

It was in that political atmosphere that the eruption of April 13, 1979 occurred. This had profound implications for a small resource-challenged country, inexperienced in handling such a major disaster. Our country and its leaders, in every sphere of life were to be severely tested. Could we rise above the divisions and work together in the interest of national unity? Could we set aside our political differences and cooperate in the relief and rehabilitation efforts?

We shall see how these challenges were met in my follow-up column on Friday.

Renwick Rose is a community activist and social commentator.