Submitted by Looking Glass
We seem preoccupied with peripheral issues—everything from transparency to Senatorial non-attendance— and criticism of government while seemingly oblivious to the major problem, the economy. Along the way we blame everyone and everything except ourselves, echoing the utterances of some significant others in the name of wisdom. Could it be that we have but a spurious understanding of the role of the Senate, the government and the economy? Is the attack on Westminster an excuse for the absence of smart thinking? Or are we being purely political? Knowing the problems but not the answers is pointless. It is time the critics present a definitive plan or series of proposals to save the sinking ship.
The Westminster Model has been with us for more than 100 years, I believe since 1865. The fact that it served us well in the post independence era implies that the same was not true in the preceding era. Is that really the case? Post independence success coincided with the Development Decade of the 1960s; a time when banks, corporations, the IMF and World Bank flushed with an overflow of idle capital went in search of investment opportunities. And we like other underdeveloped countries accommodated them.
The Model has little to do with our collapsing economy, your contribution to the collapse, or the need for trained people and or the creation of body of expertise for the sake of productivity. Are trained Senators a prerequisite for productivity? The Senate is not a manufacturing facility.
Things have changed in the last 20 or so years. Countries, some via the IMF, GATT and World Bank, have revised and altered the conditions and terms of both business and cooperation. Waiting in the wings is the Multinational Agreement On Investment or an amended version thereof. The Model has nothing to do with the “disappearance of preferential tariffs and quotas which benefited developing countries like Barbados.” In the interim we surrendered most of our most valuable assets—Port, Airport, the National Bank, the Oval and Land—The current regime inherited an empty trough, a humungous national debt which cannot be retired in 40 years and the already resident IMF.
Parliamentary non-attendance is neither new nor unusual there or anywhere else. Being present at every sitting is not indicative efficiency or effectiveness. How many elected members of the Lower House with a stellar attendance record have introduced half a dozen or more bills, or made a positive contribution beyond voting for a bill, languishing in the dining room, and telling you what you needed to hear? A smaller Lower House and elected Senators is unlikely to change this reality. There is nothing wrong with the Westminster Model. Models like systems are not natural orders, but inert devices designed by man to facilitate operation. So blame the man and those who put him there not the model
That the Senate is too large may well be debatable. However Senators are not appointed to meet with the public or the media. They may and can influence policy but can’t dictate it. That responsibility, like informing the public, lies with the elected members of Parliament.
Government can’t correct our socio-economic degeneration without resources or access to resources neither of which we have, and people revise their lifestyle. It is unlikely the Oil spill in the Gulf will be fully contained. Oil prices will rise and so too the price of all imports, a fact over which we (the Senate) has no control. Government can’t even make you put two sweet potato or onion plants in the backyard. The worst is still to come. This is not in defence of party or government per se; but should government decide to raise taxes, freeze wages etc to contain the economic descent would it be considered capable and efficient?
Darcy Boyce is said to be guilty of, among other things, a few short scattered speeches. Not surprising no mention was made of substance. Long speeches are the exception not the rule in similar settings elsewhere. Are long speeches indicative of competence and substance? Those not privy to his short speeches and debates have so far demonstrated little understanding of the role of the Senate, overall problems and are ill-equipped to evaluate substance. So is this a case of criticism for criticism sake?
One person acknowledged Mr. Boyce’s expertise but deemed him unsuitable “simply because he does not have the required communication skills.” The person should define communication skills. Am I to understand that Mr. Boyce, one of the most competent and qualified souls to grace our parliament in the last 20 or more years, who successfully traversed deep intellectual and professional waters and consulted with some of the worlds leading agencies without the required communication skills? If so then his expertise and ability are truly great. Either way your opinion of Mr. Boyce is neither his concern nor business. Few of you could step into his shoes.
Our words and actions cannot be greater than ourselves. Passing judgment on people and matters about we know no, like criticism for the sake of criticism or political purpose is neither indicative nor symbolic of intellect or understanding.
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.