[dropcap]G[/dropcap]iven the reckless behaviour and naked threats that seem these days to pass for parliamentary opposition, and bearing in mind our political system, I need ask: Are there limits in law (and political etiquette) to the opposition behaviour in parliament? Ancillary to this we may ask whether opposing is the same as hindering the work of the executive, regardless the cost. Is there not a civilized understanding that the legitimate agenda of the elected majority must take precedence over the wishes of the minority opposition? I declare these serious questions for national debate.
In a recent article I proffered the reminder that Saint Lucia is not Rwanda and that there are no Hutus and Tutsis living here. Someone told me afterwards that reference to Hutus and Tutsis was “a bit harsh”. Yet, events that have unfolded since that article prompt the above questions. It appears that there are forces determined to disrupt every effort by the Allen Chastanet-led UWP government. I suspect one reason might be that the opposition fears the government’s proposed investigations will reveal things better left uncovered. The Chastanet government insists—and not without evidence—that transparency and accountability were thrown out of the window soon after the 1997 general elections, when the frontliners of the current opposition formed the government.
The foundation necessary to answer the above questions is laid down in the guide to our system of parliamentary government. It says: “The duty of the opposition is to oppose.” Herein lies our dilemma. Many former colonies of Britain patterned their system of government after the former colonial power. Tribal and cultural differences, greed and corruption, intervened in many instances to make a mockery of the process of parliamentary democracy. When these corrupt politicians are booted out of office, politics degenerates into an all-out non-stop war of words, and often more, against the elected government.
A cursory review discloses that where politicians have attained office and become greedy and corrupt, they develop an impulse to manipulate the democratic system and try to remain in office regardless of the obvious wishes of the electorate. A review also suggests that corrupt politicians feel most threatened while in opposition. Their fear is rooted in the possibility that vices committed in government will be discovered, with serious consequences.
It’s worth repeating that a government that does wrong in office often has support from questionable characters. It can happen that those who aided a corrupt regime whilst in office would act to frustrate the new government’s efforts at discovering evidence of maladministration and worse. How far would the opposition go to oppose and frustrate the work of a government? The answer, my dear Watson, is quite elementary. It depends on how much the opposition wishes to hide. A useful guide is that a secretive party that refuses to account for its financial dealings in office will be equally determined to keep its record a secret.
There is, thankfully, another and opposite side to the question of how far an opposition would go to frustrate the work of the government. It is this: How far would the government and the party which supports it go to stop those who wish to impede and frustrate the work of the government? I often hear people say that the United Workers Party (UWP) is a working party that gets things done when in office, and dislikes opposing an elected government. The UWP attitude is a good one when the government it opposes is honest. People contest elections to form the government and hopefully work to change the economy for the better. Perhaps that explains why the Allen Chastanet-led UWP government spends so little time responding to outrageous allegations from hacks and frightened former ministers of the government. The government is too busy working!
How far the UWP would go to defend its leader and his government is still a fair question. I say categorically that the UWP must remove from its mind any thought of answering every dog that barks. If the former government spent millions investigating a former minister, it clearly hoped to arrest and drag him before the courts. This is not a joke! Even foolish ministers do not throw money away. Or do they? The UWP attitude must be to let them do their worst who wish to burn heavy equipment and frustrate all efforts at building the horse-racing track at Vieux Fort. Let other arsonists who wish to burn important public buildings and hospitals, God forbid, do so too. But it is my fervent prayer that when arsonists and others who spread a skin irritant at Hewanorra International Airport are caught, Saint Lucians will shed no tears!
These attacks—let’s call a spade a spade—are meant to hurt the economic progress and prosperity of Saint Lucia. They are attacks against the people of Saint Lucia. They are meant to lure government supporters into hurling insults and abuse at the opposition and SLP supporters. Cursing and quarrelling would play into the hands of those who refuse to accept that the people voted them out of office less than two years ago, in June 2016. Confusion is what an opposition bereft of ideas feeds on.
There is nothing the opposition would like more than for the UWP and the government to join it in creating political turmoil. The SLP must be reminded by ordinary rank and file UWP supporters that they have no other legal choice but to wait three more years for another shot at elections. No elections before 2021! For the opposition that may be a bitter pill to swallow. It is our duty, as patriotic Saint Lucians, to force that pill down the enemy’s throat. We must get on with the job of building a better more prosperous Saint Lucia. It’s time to rise and shine!
