Dear Editor,
Your editorial of Monday, April 7, 2008, captioned “Walk-out” adverted to the stalemate which led to the Opposition Parties’ recent walk-out from Parliament, and discussed the justification therefor.
Channel 9’s Spotlight Programme also debated this issue last Thursday, April 3, 2008.
Christopher Ram moderated the discussion by a group of persons who represented different facets of ‘Civil Society’ Stakeholders. Interestingly the parties were unanimous in their perception of the positive interaction at the stakeholders forum held earlier at the Office of the President, and the environment of optimism from which they departed at the end of the event. “Wow!” was one of the expressions used.
So it was with emphatic disappointment that the panel viewed subsequent events in the National Assembly when the Opposition’s amendment to the Administration’s motion (which ‘literally’ confirmed the understandings reached at the ‘forum’) was rejected – precipitating the walk-out.
The discussants argued, not unreasonably, that the opposition (and perhaps the administration) had overlooked the other stakeholders being part of any further dialogue; and that the failure to consult with ‘Civil Society’ may have weakened what greater moral authority the opposition could have brought to the house.
The discussants were quite articulate, and there was a significant congruence of views, perhaps partly because of the strong implication that they still had faith in the governance structure, or it may be they felt there was no other option. Certainly they did not seem to share the cynicism (however restrained) of the moderator.
These upright, normal and logical people refused to accept the possibility that, not inconsistent with earlier performances, the Stakeholders Forum was a contrivance enforced by a particular set of circumstances, and did not reflect any fundamental change in the administration’s hitherto remote relationship with ‘Civil Society’. In short there was no genuine attempt by one to ‘level’ with the other. It was truly a ‘playing’ field.
More importantly however, was the clear implication that ‘Civil Society’ was waiting to be invited back into the loop, so that they could have added their weight to the Parliamentary discourse, in some form.
But the fact is that ‘Civil Society’ is not an organisation. It has no centre. It may have body parts, but it is not a cohesive whole. So what are the arrangements for communicating with these Stakeholders?
If the foregoing perception is true, then it should be corrected. Action should be taken to organise into an institution, that will not only be more easily visible but whose collective voice will have greater resonance in the matter of governance, on a continuing basis.
They, and we, should not wait for another event only to foregather in a similar rush of optimism.
However, in the process of establishing an institution some will come to recognise how much disaggregation exists amongst their ranks.
Notwithstanding, their striving for unity may still be worth it; and the balancing effect of their interventions may yet be felt in the Chambers of Parliament.
Yours faithfully,
Eliah Bijay
