Confusing Public Policy With Party Politics

Details

Rawlston Pompey

Thursday, 21 February 2013 02:30

By Rawlston Pompey

When reputable Barbadian and regional political Scientist, Peter Wickham, sought to have “...coins thrown into an Antiguan fountain,” reasonable inferences may have been drawn that he may have been indirectly suggesting that Prime Minister Honourable Dr. Baldwin Spencer, consider dispensing with the services of “...four dissenting Senators” from the Senate.

 

The Scientist appeared to have succeeded in inducing others into harboring a “...confused belief” of “...Party Support” and the Senators “...official responsibilities to the nation and people.” Though there was no evidence of “...orchestrated mischief,” he had nonetheless, advanced views on developments within the Senate of Antigua and Barbuda that were clearly “...inconsistent with scientific discipline.” Citing their actions as “...unsupportive” in voting against the contentious “...Citizenship by Investment (CIP) Bill,” he had posited that it was against “...Party Discipline” [February 13, 2013]. The Scientist may wish to  take spiritual counsel from one of the nation’s religious Bishops.

SENATORIAL/MINISTERIAL APPOINTMENTS
Responses to Peter Wickham’s apparent “...misguided and/or mythical belief were swift.” Citizens showing in depth understanding of the pre-requisites for appointment to the Senate were particularly harsh. Other intellectuals, legal luminaries, as well as lay persons, accorded scant respect for his “...splendiferous non-scientific views”  expressed utter contempt to the superfluous arguments, describing them as “...naively misguided and nonsensical.” In the light of the OATH OF ALLEIANCE, this may have been substantiated by the requirements, mandating subscription to the “...OATH OF ALLEGIANCE” prior to assumption of Senatorial and Ministerial appointments.

GOOD AND EVIL
His Eminence Dr. Cortroy Jarvis, religious leader of the Moravian Church, like other denominational leaders would have cautioned sinners, ...Parliamentarians too, that the Living God hath commanded “...You are free to eat from any tree in the garden, but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of ...GOOD and ...EVIL” [Genesis: 2: 16-17]. In his secular role, Dr. David Dorset, partnering with the Sir Gerald Watt KCN, QC Law Firm “...Watt and Associates,” is well known as a professionally competent attorney. In his religious role and capacity as a Pastor, he had cautioned congregants “...Turn from Evil and do Good; ...Seek peace and pursue it” [Psalms 34:14].

THE MONARCH’S MESSAGES
Just over five decades ago, legendary social commentator Sir McLean Emmanuel, “...King Short Shirt or the Monarch” [Feb. 28, 1942-] had performed numerous intensely gripping social commentaries to receptive and appreciative audiences, “...regionally and/or internationally.” Nationally, the  messages contained in the commentaries were like vintage wines meticulously brewed for stimulating the taste-buds, and sipped, not only by those with “...Mauby Pockets,” yet with taste for Champagne, but also by those with the Pocket with no taste for Mauby” [Leonard Tim Hector: Nov.24, 1942-Nov. 12, 2002]. Most of the Monarch’s social commentaries, indisputably, reflected the difficult socio-economic conditions and unstable political situations that obtained then and seemed to have resonated among conscientious members within and outside the Parliamentary Chambers.

MAKING OF THE SENATORS
Arguably, the social commentaries produced by a prolific writer “...Shelly Tobit between the years ...1979 to 1989,” were said to be some of the finest. They were as prophetic as they were encouraging, inspiring hope while seeking to instill and/or inculcate in the citizenry, particularly in the “...aimlessly wandering youth peace of mind and “...hope of earth.” Joy of Heaven would have been dependent upon whether or not they may have sold their souls for “...Thirty Pieces of Silver,”  as currently obtained. Most of the commentaries were produced when the youthful, intelligent and purposeful Senators, “...Honourable Collin Derrick; ...David Massiah; ...Anthony Stewart and Malaka Parker” were either in their infancy or not yet conceived to appreciate the prevailing conditions. Assumedly, as they grew to adulthood and capitalized upon the opportunities provided for tertiary education, with potentials in becoming tomorrow’s LEADERS, they were provided with further opportunities in aspiring to public office. Even with the advancement of information and technology, like many today’s youth, many of yester-year had lacked a “...good sense of purpose, moral judgment and responsibility; ...skills and abilities.”

PARTY-AFFILIATED SENATORS
Without contradiction, it was unchallengeable that except a law was assented for “...regulating their conduct and/or operations,”  matters relating to “...Political Parties,” were not tabled for parliamentary ratification, even though some “...smart Scientists”  may be disposed to advance such arguments, confusing even the “...simpleton or the gullible.” Though some may very well be among the parliamentary membership, there were many who knows who “...gets the coins when they were thrown into a fountain.”The political Scientist appeared to have been laboring under illusion that Party-affiliated Senators were required to “...Sell their souls; ...reputation; ...dignity and worth” at the behest of individuals and/or organizations. “...Public Policy” was to be “...whimsically or fancifully” transformed into “...Party Politics” that requires membership “...Going along to Get along.” Many observers with differing views, including businessman Vincent ‘Tubby’ Derrick and others were of the unmistakable view that the Senate was not a place for “...yessing; ...jessing; ...professing or ...puppeteering. Like ‘Tubby D,’ observers, given the analysis of Peter Wickham, “...Political Science”  may necessitate “...re-visitation, if only to coincide with the apparent “...twisted views” of the renowned Scientist. Such subsequent visitation may have been necessary for reformation that graduates may return to institutions to acquire knowledge of a new concept to be called “...Science of Public/Party Policy.”

ABLP Decries Unlawful Rulings in Parliament Antigua St. John's - The seven Parliamentarians of the Antigua and Barbuda Labour Party (ABLP), sitting in the Parliament today, Friday June 14, 2013... read more

FATE OF THE CIP BILL
It was crystal clear that support for the controversial “...CIP Bill” may have satisfied the Scientist Peter Wickham’s  “...expectations and idealistic intellectual pattern of thinking,”  no matter how impure or ignoble. Even though four Senators may have been placed under the “...disciplinary radar” of Prime Minister Honourable Dr. Baldwin Spencer, for stance and/or actions that may have run counter to the “...expectations and feelings of their Party Leadership, even with foreseeable consequences, caution may not be thrown to the wind. Responding to the recent parliamentary proceedings within the Senate in which four “...Dissident Members,” Senators, the esteemed Malaka Parker; ...Collin Derrick; David Massiah and Anthony Stewart,” had demonstrated that which many citizens saw as “...Freedom of Conscience.” Many had concluded that their “...individual and/or collusive stance” had clearly reflected their “...Civic and official responsibilities in preserving and/or protecting the national pride, dignity and symbols” against persons lacking patriotism and/or scruples, if only for a “...A Few Dollars More.” For all intents and purposes, Political Scientist Peter Wickham who appeared not to have shared the Senators’ position, taking “...non-scientific umbrage,” was seen as erroneously linking their conduct to “...lack of Party Discipline and/or non-adherence or conformity.”

IN SPITE OF ALL
In the eyes and hearts of the citizenry, they had commendably displayed a “...deep sense of nationalistic pride; ...patriotism; wisdom and understanding.” They had apparently listened to the Monarch’s social commentary “...IN SPITE OF ALL.” The lyrical content of this commentary encourages sundry citizens “...In spite of all our    hardship and misery; ...Poor economic condition; ...We must struggle on; ...The state of affairs at the moment indicate that a stand will have to be taken soon by the people ourselves.”  This may have been seen from the recent parliamentary debate in which the Senators herein named expressed their disapproval and either openly voted against the passage of the contentious “...Citizen by Investment Programme” (CIP) Bill with its primary objectives “...Selling Citizenship/Passport” in an attempt at generating revenues.

VOICE OF REASON
Seemingly that which reportedly transpired within the Senate Chambers on Wednesday, February 13, 2013, was suggestive that the Senators may have listened to the Monarch’s Messages to the nation of “...A-N-T-I-G-U-A,”  in which he reminded the citizenry that “We..A-all came from Africa; ...that the N-nation was brave and free; ...that T-tomorrow’s children wise and free; ...that they shall use their I-initiative wisely; ...that as G-government they shall make the citizens feel content; that brown and yellow, black and white, blue and red too, everyone shall live in U-unity and that A-antigua belong to all ah we.” Those were the visions, dreams and hopes of the Monarch. The Senators, no doubt, sought to play out that which reflected the “...Voice of Reason.”

ARMS OF GOVERMNET
Within a democracy, Governments functions on administrative Law. Though political Scientists may advanced “...non-supportive arguments,”  academically, it is to be understood that within this jurisdiction, as it was in the rest of the OECS, the structure of government comprises (1) the ...Legislature; (2) ...Executive and (3) ...Judiciary.” No part of governance, functions along “...Party line.” In government, Party members elected to Parliament function only in an official capacity and shares “...collective responsibility for governance.”. The Executive functions “...administratively, while the Legislature functions “...legislatively.” Thus, while Prime Ministers may have “...philosophical approaches to governance,” the constituent arms were not reflective of “...Party Policies. Therefore, governmental decisions shall reflect not only the electoral mandate, but also the will and expectations of the electorate.”

PARTY DISCIPLINE INAPPLICABLE
It has often been touted that Members of Parliament were subject to “...Party Discipline.” Even though that it may have been a practice allowed by some organizations, within the parliamentary setting, “...Party Discipline” has no legitimacy.” For instance, an elected Member of the House of Representatives, if he was assigned a “...port folio” (Ministry) may have it revoked by a Prime Minister if he was dissatisfied with his performance. Though a Member may become a “...Backbencher,” he may still retain his membership within the Parliament. This may be supported by precedence as in the Cases of former Ministers in the Sir George H. Walter administration when he sacked his brother Finance Minister “...Selvin Walter and then Home Affairs Minister Donald Halstead [PLM 1971-1976]. A smart Scientist may have citizens believe this were not so.

Molwyn Takes up Cell Tower Issue Antigua St. John's - Senior Member of the Antigua Labour Party (ALP) and Member of Parliament in St. Mary's North Molwyn Joseph has taken up the proli... read more

ADMINISTRATIVE POLICY-DECISIONS
Contrary to any “...scientific” views and/or expressions, “...Public Policy Decisions” though deemed “...political decisions,” they were the result of “...Administrative Policy-Decisions,”  duly considered at another level –the Executive arm of governance through a Decision legitimately taken by “...port folioed Members of Cabinet.” Frequently, some “...political decisions,”  such as those that had bedevilled former Grenadian Prime Minister Tilman Thomas, who had been humiliated by a Dr. Keith Mitchell crushing defeat winning the 15- member seats in the Grenada Parliament [Nickie Leaks:Feb.19, 2013]. Autocracy, such as that displayed by Thomas had been known to have provoked, “...electoral humiliation, contempt and public wrath.”  That being said, a more “enlightened citizenry” may know that there is a “...thin line” between “...good and evil; ...love and hate;...intellectual stupidity and commonsense, and bravery and fool-hardiness.”

PARTY POLICY
The world’s most renowned social commentator Slinger Francisco, “...Mighty Sparrow” once spoke to a “...smart Barbadian Engineer”  by the name of “: CEPHAS. He had conjured up a way of defrauding people of their money and built a fountain in a Trinidad mountain.” He reportedly had “...Stupid people coming from all about throwing coins in a fountain and making wishes for all kinds of things.” He was finally arrested while dancing around when he saw “...three gold coins in the fountain.” Singing “...All is mine,” Police pounced upon him and told him “...Not this time.” Frequently people were led to believe that “...Party Policies “were the same as “...Public Policy.” Research provides a simple understanding, “...Policies by Party Executive were designed to guide management; ...discipline; ...planning for successful elections.” For instance, when the R. Allen Stanford Financial empire collapsed and Attorney General Honourable Justin L. Simon QC moved swiftly to Parliament to “...Compulsorily Acquire” his land=based assets, he had not done so because of “...Party Policy,” but in the interest of the public and national interest.

PUBLIC POLICY
When Parliamentarians speak to “...Public Policy,” they are in fact speaking to a particular concept that decisions taken shall be so informed that they represent the public interest; ...that when publicized, communicated and explained, the public may be persuaded into accepting them with little or no reservations. Frequently, people across the globe were forced to entertain mistrust and/or suspicious of public officials when they became noticeably “...cagey, evasive and/or dismissive. Hence, alleviating public mistrust, necessitates not only “...sensitization, but also transparency for good governance.”  A government “...Policy Statement” was said to be a “...Declaration of a government political activities, plans, programmes and intentions relating to a concrete cause, or at the assumption of office for an entire Legislative Session” In [Wikipedia]. In democracies, headed by the Monarchy, such “...Policies” (Throne Speech) were usually delivered by Her Majesty’s Representatives, Governors General at the commencement of a new Parliamentary Session.  From the perspective of Law “...Public Policy” was said to be “...That principle of the Law that holds that no subject can lawfully do that which has a tendency to be injurious to the public; or ...against the public good [Egerton v Brownlow (Earl): 1853: 4 HL. Cas.196: Lord Truro].

MANIFESTOS
Most were said to be “...Declarations of Intent,” published in “...Manifestos.” There may have been evidence of this when at the recent ALP Convention, Party Leader Honorable Gaston Browne reportedly published and presented a Manifesto with his plans and programmes that had won him the coveted leadership. Despite the fact that he had described the four dissenting Senators actions within the Senate as “...Defiant and in some instances, contradictory to Prime Minister Baldwin Spencer,”  the Party’s Rules shall be confined only to matters affecting the Party membership. Both Houses of Parliament have their own Rules to govern the conduct of their respective Members and the Honourable Leader of Her MAJESTY’s Loyal Opposition and Honourable Senator Paul ‘Chet’  Green, may also lend their attestations [Daily Observer: Jan.19, 2012].

TOWING PARTY LINE
Adding credence to the Constitutional requirements, if such was a position taken by Nathaniel ‘Paddy” James, Deputy Chairman of the Antigua and Barbuda Electoral Commission (ABEC), that allegiance to his Party, dictated an obligation in “...Towing Party Line,”  the misunderstanding that had developed between current Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition, Honourable Gaston Browne and himself prior to the March 12, General Elections, he may have suffered dire consequences, his folly in adhering to “...Party politics, policies and/or instructions, consequent upon the Tribunal specifically convened to remove him et al from office. James had made it abundantly clear that he owed no allegiance to the Party membership. Acting judiciously, but expressing himself forthrightly, as was the recent display of the Honourable Senator Edmond Michael Abdul Mansor (Freedom of Speech), he had it made abundantly clear through the electronic media to sundry members, and by extension the citizenry, “...that his appointment was not made by his Party; ...that there was no Allegiance to the Party or Party-whip; ...that he represented neither the Party’s, nor the Leadership’s interests, however, “...fundamental, grave or desperate.” He had demonstrated to the citizenry that the national interest superceded that of his party.

CONFOUNDING PUBLIC/PARTY POLICY
The Oath states “...I Peter Wickham do swear that I will faithfully bear ‘TRUE ALLEGIANCE’ to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Her Heirs and Successors, according to Law.” Accepting that in parliamentary proceedings, there was no “...allegiance to Party and/or Leadership,” Peter Wickham appeared to have confounded “...Public Policy” with that of “...Party Politics,” thereby, unnecessarily insulted the intelligence of the citizenry. It was also to be understood that within the Houses of Parliament, the Members even with different designations were all “...Parliamentarians.” This was to be seen at every opening of a new Session of Parliament. In that instance, both “...Parliamentary Representatives of the people and Senators,” shall be in attendance, not necessarily for the purpose of extending courtesy to Her Majesty’s Representative, the Governor General, but specifically to show that they were “...Bearing True Allegiance” ONLY to Her Majesty the Queen. This may remain so until the Monarchy is replaced. Recently, St. Vincent and the Grenadines Prime Minister Dr. Ralph Gonsalves attempted to do so through a “...Constitutional Referendum” and failed [Nov. 26, 2009].



APPOINTMENT OF SENATORS
The Constitution allows for “...Establishment and Composition of Parliament.” Thus Section “27” provides for the Senate (appointed) and the House of Representatives (elected). Clearly, framers of the Constitution saw the Senate as having a “...superior parliamentary functional position” than that of the House of Representatives, Section “36” of which provides for its establishment. Appointment to the Senate is a Constitutional function imposed upon the Prime Minister, Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition and the Governor General. Respecting the parliamentary provisions, Section “29” provides for “...Qualifications for appointment of Senators, while Section “30” provides for their disqualification.”

DISQUALIFICATION OF SENATORS
These have been entrenched provisions in satisfaction of the requirements of the “...bi-cameral Legislative Chambers,” that comprises both the “...Upper and Lower Houses of Parliament.” Incidentally, Section “...30” provides for “...Disqualification from Appointment as Senator,” either “...before or after.” Interestingly, however, “...disqualification after appointment” provides only for matters inter alia “...Allegiance, adherence and/or obedience to foreign power; ...Bankruptcy; Certified lunacy; ...Sentence of death; ...Member of the House; ...Disqualification for election to the House; ...acting in public offices; ...Conviction for theft, fraud or dishonesty; and...Members of Armed or Police Forces” [Sec.30: Constitution 1981]. While it may appear that such appointments have no “...Security of Tenure,” and that in “...one fell swoop,” a Senator or Senators may find themselves sitting in the public gallery provided for observance of Parliamentary proceedings, there was no reference to “...Party Discipline” for the removal of Members. This was sometimes subject to abuse and the Honourable Senator Lennox Weston may attest to such experiences.

CONCLUSION
In any organization, it was expected that the dignity and worth of members were recognized and respected; ...where camaraderie among its members is encouraged; ...where communication was open and free; ...where divergent views were respected; ...where members may feel that they have a stake in its goals and/or objectives; where its core values were clearly understood, maintained and played out with acceptable standard of behavior. These, however, were not possible without an enabling environment conducive to its members needs, but more specifically to the growth and development of both members and the organization. It was obvious that the Senate fiasco, though not necessarily reflective to a fractured relationship, but more particularly, a consciousness of that which may befall the nation and people. There was no doubt that Senate Members of whichever “...persuasion and/or affiliation,” who, without hypocrisy, may have “...openly expressed specific nationalistic concerns” and those in abstention from the proceedings, including the “...weak-willed or chicken-hearted,” who out of “...acrimonious fear,” may have “...silently and/or whispered privately” concerns over the contentious “...Citizen by Investment Programme (CIP) Bill.” In the view of Members within the august body, those who had “...whispered privately” were not only to be seen as committing a despicable treacherous act, but also threat to “...Senatorial camaraderie and national pride.”

• < Prev
• Next >