Rowley's censure motion a vital lesson in democracy
In this country we tend to forget things or simply brush them under a rug.
As time passes and no immediate actions or remedies are taken we shrug it off. Because of this attitude I wish to take issue with a recent letter in which the writer states that Dr Rowley's motion of censure in the Section 34 fallout is "a colossal waste of valuable parliamentary time and an exercise in futility".
Democracy is a system of government which allows public expression of opinion and space for differing views. In this way, democracy and freedom of speech reinforce and support each other. Without these rights our freedoms are eventually destroyed.
I am appalled that the writer thinks that moving on to something else and brushing away issues of freedoms and rights of the people of T&T is the proper thing to do.
The role of the Opposition in a parliamentary democracy does not solely require that they oppose any and everything the majority proposes. There are wider tenets that operate for good governance.
The Opposition is a voice for those who have no voice, to ensure that other interests not represented in Parliament are heard. Yes, the Opposition does present itself as a viable alternative to the present Government but to oppose also implies that the Opposition is obligated to expose areas of governance that fly contrary to practices of good government and integrity.
There are many who are seriously concerned about the course of the Section 34 debacle.
The Government has consistently refused to give clear, straightforward answers to a population that has become so cynical about politics and politicians that one almost begins to believe that there is no hope for our country and that all incumbent governments are totally untrustworthy.
We know that the Opposition does not have the votes to pass the motion of censure but I disagree that it is a waste of time. In the debate the Government will have another opportunity to clear the air.
The Opposition has an obligation to the people to bring our disgust at this breach of practice into the official record if only to show that our political institutions are functioning very badly and have failed to take account of public opinion and the poor quality of decision-making.