Politics in Barbados seem to have hit an all time low: the ruling party is under severe scrutiny because of its mismanagement of the economy, but the other side is apparently moving under the radar escaping any meaningful examination of its performance. In my opinion, the Opposition, as presently constituted, is fast becoming an ineffective laughingstock.
Recently, the media carried a story to the effect that Kerrie Symmonds was “elevated” to some non-existent post of “Leader of Opposition Business” in the House of Assembly. Political analyst and commentators quickly waded in on the merits and implications of the appointment, without first considering that there is no such post. The political leader of the minority party in the House becomes Opposition Leader or if you like, the leader of opposition business. One section of the media reported that members on the Government side laughed when the announcement was made. That alone should have given the Opposition pause since this otherwise clueless Government thought that it was funny.
If I were Kerri Symmonds, I would be quite offended at being held up to ridicule by thinking people. The opposition does not lead any business in the House. The Opposition Leader would normally designate persons to shadow ministerial portfolios, and those persons would then become the Opposition’s lead spokesperson on the particular subject matter. But appointing a leader of Opposition business is really taking a joke too far. Persons who form the Opposition were not elected to provide comic relief: they have a serious constitutional role of keeping the Government on its toes. Instead, we have an Opposition that appears ill-prepared to present itself as the Government in waiting.
I do not often listen to parliamentary debates, but when I do, I get the impression that Opposition members are following Government’s lead of speaking and getting by with only peripheral knowledge of the matter before the House.
On Tuesday, July 23, 2013 Government introduced an ill-conceived amendment to the Defence Act which would allow officers and soldiers to be suspended on half-pay when they are going through the disciplinary process. The Prime Minister justified the amendment by suggesting that a similar arrangement exists in the Public Service. He seems not to understand that it is reprehensible to punish an accused by taking away half of his salary and then seek to determine his guilt or innocence.
A person placed on half-pay pending the outcome of a charge might suffer hardship trying to survive on that level of income. And when found to be innocent of the charge, the return of the half-salary that was withheld might not necessarily undo the suffering that the person had to endure.
I know of one case where a person, on half-pay, who was eventually found to be not guilty, but before then he had lost his home to the bank, and his wife to another man because he could not support his family. No amount of money could compensate a person who had been victimized in this manner.
Instead of opposing the backward measure, the shadow spokesman, or should I say the leader of opposition business for Defence and Security, got up and threw the Opposition’s support behind the amendment. It is clear to me, if to no one else that the Opposition is chewing on more than it can bite off. They need to study the legislation going before the House, and if necessary, get help to understand what is before them. This half-hearted performance of their duty just will not do.
Our country is now suffering from the effects of an inept Government made worse by an equally amateurish Opposition. If so much of our daily lives were not so intertwined in politics, the ineptitude of present day politicians would be funny. Sadly though it is not!
The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.