A look at some political basics

(Cross Country newspaper: 26 May 2001,

First published October, 1993)

In the very month that Joshua pulled out of the ill-fated Alliance virtually to bring together the two parties, the PPP and Labour, into a conservative bloc, the DFM Draft Manifesto focused on change. And many of the suggestions which came both from floor and panel last Tuesday night, turned out to be restatements or refinements of what the DFM had put forward nearly twenty years ago. Let us reflect.

In its section on Political Reform, the DFM manifesto had pledged the following among other things.

” (1) The formation of a People’s Assembly composed of delegates nominated by all non-partisan voluntary groups and organizations operating on an island-wide basis, to debate matters of public interest and to forward recommendations to the Government.

(2) a. To enable the electors in every constituency to remove an elected representative from office before the expiry of his normal term, in cases where the performance of such representative has been found to be totally unsatisfactory from the point of view of his constituents. 

   b. to require elected representatives to make a full declaration of their assets at the beginning and end of each of their legislative terms;

   C. limiting the term of office of any person as Head of Government, to two consecutive terms, with the possibility of resumption for a further term of office;

   d. limiting the amount of money which candidates will be allowed to spend on election campaigns.

   e. requiring parties or candidates to disclose their principal sources of finance.

3. To ensure that all government-controlled news media will allow reasonable space and time for the expression of views other than those of the ruling party.

4. To intensify the search for a system of democratic government as an alternative to the present Westminster parliamentary model.”

On the specific matter of Independence, the fourteenth anniversary of which we are now celebrating, the DFM was clear and concise. decoctionWe believe in the inherent right of all peoples to self-determination... 

It follows, therefore, that early attainment of Independence is accorded a high place in our priority list.

We need only add that we regard of small size and economic dependence not as a deterrent but rather as a challenge to our pursuit of this noble goal of independent nationhood.

At the same time, we must put on our dedication to working towards not only regional political integration but regional political integration.

The realities of the present situation, however, dictate that we go to it alone at least in the first instance”

When Independence was in the air in 1979, the DFM sought to help fashion a constitutional framework which could invest our sovereignty with real meaning by committing itself, body and soul, to the creative work of National Independence Committee under the Chairmanship of the venerable Henry Williams.

The NIC came up, among other things, with the ideas of Republican status for the new nation, a separate and independent boundaries and election commission to ensure that election were truly free and fair, and free from fear.

The country rejected the DFM and its views in 1974 while Cato and company laughed the contributions of the NIC to scorn in 1979. 

Yet, like good cream which always floats to the top, many of the ideas resurfaced, were warmed over, and repackaged for marketing during the exciting exercise in democracy which marked the processes of the Regional Constituent Assembly that deliberate on the question of Windward Island Unity 1990. To these were added notion of an Executive Prime Minister, a mixed-system of voting that imported elements of proportional representation, and a fixed tenure of Government. 

So that Tuesday night’s meeting far from being a revelation in fact carry strong hint of déjà vu in endorsement of Becket’s dictum that "what goes around, comes around”.

In sum, there is delightful nonsense in the notion of the No-party State which is unpractical, visionary and utopian, in the real workaday world, parties are the motor that drives the engine of politics which is necessary for governance in modern civil society.

 The one-party system is undemocratic and repressive.

The Communist One- party claims a monopoly on absolute truth and the right to be the repository of eternal varieties. 

It has fallen under its own weight and today stands rejected and discredited by all freedom-loving peoples.

For all its shortcomings and limitations, the multiparty system of which the Two Party variety is its flagship, seems to be the way to go continuing efforts must always be made to provide the social and legal framework best suited to its operation. There is little else that imperfect human being can do.”

 In any event, I look forward to the NDP to winning at least eleven seats in the next general election and instituting changes which will safe-guard our democracy.