“Parliament, after all, is fundamentally about debate –
"rhetoric" in the classical Greek sense – and the transacting of the
people’s business in public.[1]”
“…It is also about the right to dissent in a civilized manner. Genuine
political opposition is a necessary attribute of democracy, tolerance, and
trust in the ability of citizens to resolve differences by peaceful means. The
existence of an opposition, without which
politics ceases and administration takes over, is indispensable to the
functioning of parliamentary political systems.[2]”
(Emphasis added)
The role of the leader of the Opposition and of the opposition parties is
to be as vigilant and diligent as the members of the government on the other
side of the House.[3]
In 1988, Gerald Schmitz of
Political and Social Affairs Division the Canadian government wrote a paper on
the role of the Opposition in a Parliamentary system. Schmitz pointed out the
role that citizens play in Aristotle’s Athenian polity: by turn, citizens are both the rulers and the ruled.
He spoke to the ability of a minority of elected representatives to band
together and persuade a majority of its point of view by political means – that
is, without recourse to violence. Schmitz argued that direct citizen democracy
has been mostly replaced by representative systems providing for periodic
elections, which are usually dominated by a small number of political parties
which select their own candidates and leaders.
“What has not changed,
however, in our modern liberal-democratic society is the hallowed principle
that government must rest on the consent of the governed…the minority accepts the right of the majority to make decisions, provided
that there is reciprocal respect for the minority’s right to dissent from these
decisions and to promote alternative policies.”[4]
(Emphasis added)
In another forum recently,
the necessity for a political opposition in The Bahamas – particularly in the
wake of an historic landslide election which saw the incumbent prime minister even lose a seat he had
held for 40 years! – was debated, questioned, and mostly accepted as a given.
Consider some of the views
given in the debate, one outlier of which was the focus on civil society.
This particular view was
that the absence of an aggressive political opposition opened a lane for civil
society to play on a stage to which it has heretofore been denied access. For
instance, the argument was that the role of civil society is, “in part to keep
pressure on governments to ensure they are doing what they are meant to do in
accordance with whatever laws, policies, regulations! You can have different
types too. You can have an agenda, that's fine. But much like the media, the
role of civil society is in keeping with a system of checks and balances and
helps to hold a government accountable.”
The writer continued,
“Civil society is quickly developing in The Bahamas, but there is a long way to
go. When I refer to civil society, I don't refer to a linear group of people
purporting to speak for everyone. I am talking about picking up your issue, and
galvanizing like-minded people around it, and bringing that to your
representatives as an issue to move forward. And civil society takes different
forms – it can be grassroots (what we see mostly) community movements, but
other forms as well. The Nassau Institute, for example, conducts research
right? That helps to inform platforms and causes. That is a form of civil society,
too, in my view.”
Questioned as to whether
the argument was that these groups should apply political pressure, should in
fact play a direct role in opposing the sitting government of the day, the
writer said, “I see the challenge here is that people are not accustomed to
advocacy. Applying pressure to a government is fundamentally the role of civil
society non-governmental organizations. That pressure is usually for the
purpose of advancing a cause. FOIA (the Freedom Of Information Act) is a great
example. It is accepted that access to information is a human right. There is
an international framework asserting that. It's is a gap in our current system
and people see the need for it. So people demanded it. They formed a group and
galvanized support around it. They lobbied government for it. They didn't
oppose the sitting government, they demanded they act in their best interest to
ensure protection of their rights. Especially as it was something that was
promised.”
“So without a strong
opposition as we now see, it will be up to you to look at the promises given,
galvanize support around the issues that most interest you, and ensure promises
are realized,” the writer concluded.
Questions about the
legitimacy of The Bahamas’ democracy arose when another writer, citing the
Westminster convention at the heart of this discussion, pointed out the role of
the party whip.
“While I’m concerned about
a second term with such low Opposition representation on the House of Assembly,
the reality is that in the Westminster system where the whip is traditionally
always on, the governing party can push their agenda through whether they have
most of the seats or just one more than the Opposition,” the writer said.
In the UK, Whips are MPs
or Members of the House of Lords appointed by each party in Parliament to help
organise their party's contribution to parliamentary business. They are
expected to maintain party discipline – mainly by encouraging MPs to vote
according to the party line – and party unity. In The Bahamas, the most
important function of the Whip would appear to be ensuring that increasingly
independent-minded MPs vote the party line.
A more hopeful writer
raised the possibility of a purely altruistic political administration.
“I don't think we need an
official opposition. If the current administration delivers on the promise of
transparency, then the people (whose time it is) will hold them accountable to
every decision made,” the writer said, acknowledging the possibility that such
behavior might be considered unlikely.
One writer asserted that
The Bahamas’ need for a political Opposition was a matter of principle.
“In practice, not so much.
Given our national proclivity to landslide elections we're often left with
toothless oppositions who at best delay the inevitable (say v. way) and at
worst waste several hours of everyone's time each Wednesday. On top of that,
most vitriolic or passionate pleas from the Opposition simply mimic the salient
points already made in the papers or on radio by some member of civil society.
Our current parliamentary system just doesn't foster a healthy environment for
political compromise,” the writer said, concluding with a quote from
Thucydides. “Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in
power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.”
Social anthropologist Dr.
Nicolette Bethel argued that there is indeed a need for a political opposition
in The Bahamas. In fact, Bethel cited a three-fold need.
“Because as sitting MPs in
our adversarial system, the opposition is privy to a number of issues that the
ordinary citizen is not; because the responsibility of every MP is not only to
his/her party (Whip or no) but also to his/her constituents and the nation at
large, and because when the opposition – even an opposition of one voice – does
the job it is called to do, it can expose the flaws and the weaknesses in
proposed legislation to the public at large, and in so doing help to make those
things, and the society, better,” she asserted.
Citing previous
oppositions of various sizes – all significantly in the minority – Bethel argued
that nothing was put on the table in the House of Assembly that was not
questioned and examined in the fullest. This kind of vigorous opposition, she
posited, brought about labour rights and majority rule, and helped bring the
corruption of the drug era into the public consciousness and ultimately led to a
change of government.
“I think the salient point
in the kinds of oppositions I've listed…is that the members who made the
difference were driven by a commitment to principle, rather than to party…Perhaps
we could say that their ideals at that stage were bigger than their search for
reward,” she said. “I don’t know.”
In legislatures like ours,
which share the British
Commonwealth heritage of looking to the
“Westminster model” of parliamentary democracy for inspiration, there are some
tools available to the opposition.
Time
Canadian parliamentarian Stanley Knowles said, “the opposition
should so conduct itself in Parliament as to persuade the people of the country
that it could be an improvement on the government of the day.” Given the vigor
and outright glee with which Bahamians engage in electoral politics, one of the
most important facts of our democracy is the fact that we are at present a
two-party system. In Canada, and other Parliamentary federations like it, “the government
must continue to enjoy the confidence of the House between elections, but, even
in minority government situations, the real test of confidence is not in the
daily balance of forces between government and opposition in the chamber but in
the anticipated or threatened electoral contest among the major parties.”[5]
Knowles argued that the role of an opposition is to check and
prod, but ultimately to replace the government party. Meanwhile, an
observer described the British House of Commons as the place where a
“continuous election campaign...is fought.”
Schmitz said it was crucial to
maintain the distinction between parliamentary, representative democracy and
the sort of direct, plebiscitary appeal to ‘the people’ which history shows can
be made compatible with the most technocratic and authoritarian forms of
government.
“A
vigorous opposition in Parliament can be the chief bulwark against the
temptation to force majeure and
bureaucratic empire. ‘The people’ speak through the “loyal opposition” as well
as the government, through back-benchers as well as Cabinet ministers. There is
simply no substitute for the checks and balance which are brought into play in
the representative and watchdog functions performed by ordinary Members of
Parliament,” he said.
Schmitz
continued, “Just as members of the upper house are expected to use it as a
chamber of “sober second thought” as well as a guarantor of minority rights and
sectional interests, so, too, members of the opposition in the lower house are
called upon to act as a brake on government haste, to ensure that all
legislation receives the due process of parliamentary deliberation, and to see
that diverse and opposing points of view have a chance to be aired and
defended.”[6]
The weapon of time must be wielded well. As Schmitz rightly pointed out, all MPs
have the right to articulate the interests of their constituents, to scrutinize
the actions of the government, and, if in opposition, to present alternative
policies to the public.
Oversight
Another
tool is oversight. In other
parliamentary democracies, MPs are expected to oversee the government’s
spending plans through the scrutiny of departmental estimates which are
referred to the appropriate standing committees around the start of each fiscal
year. The committee system in the Bahamian Parliament has been weak. With the
exception of the particular Public Accounts Committees referred to above, most
observers could not point to an effective parliamentary committee in the modern
history of The Bahamas. And, as in The Bahamas, even the Public Accounts Committee
is able to exercise only a post-audit oversight function.
However,
when – as often happens in The Bahamas – major decisions take place without
passing through parliamentary channels, the opposition is almost hamstrung in
terms of its ability to scrutinize and influence government actions.
The burden of making Parliament more effective falls, above all, on the
shoulders of the opposition and Members of Parliament in their individual
capacities.[7]
Procedure
In
terms of effective opposing, former Ft. Charlotte MP Alfred Sears – who served
at various times as Attorney General and Minister of Education – was a terror
in opposition and in government through his mastery of the rules of procedure,
and the ignorance of many government MPs of that self-same procedural rulebook.
As
with time, procedure as a weapon must
be wielded with precision. One commentator said the balance between compromise
and obstruction, co-option and reflex opposition, is often in the eye of the
beholder. As the rules are stretched, anger and mistrust are the inevitable
by-products. After all, Parliament exists not only to transact the business of
state, but to provide a forum in which all legitimate points of view can be
expressed. The government has, in Schmitz’ terms, “a right and duty to govern.”
“The
opposition’s right and duty, if it believes the public interest is at stake, is
to oppose the government’s policies and actions by every legitimate
parliamentary means. In so doing, oppositions try to convince the electorate
that they should change places with the government. Because of this continuous
contest, parliamentary democracy is always a more or less trying affair, but
politics, not mere administration, is what representative, alternative
government is all about.”[8]
Schmitz
asserted that government backbenchers cannot hold the Cabinet and civil service
to account, that it is the opposition which is chiefly responsible for keeping
government on its toes, and for fearlessly asserting the rights of the
legislature vis-à-vis the executive. Ultimately, he argues, “the best guarantee
of good government is still the vigilance of an effective parliamentary
opposition.”[9]
[1]
http://www.lop.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
[2]
ibid
[3]
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
[4]
ibid
[5]
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
[6]
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
[7]
ibid
[8]
https://lop.parl.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/bp47-e.htm
[9]
ibid
No comments:
Post a Comment