Is Opposition carrying out its role effectively?

The opposition’s formal role in Parliament is to hold the government to account. Another major role is proposing alternatives to what the government is doing so the public gets the benefit of political debate between different directions.

When one listens to debates in our Parliament, could one say without contradiction that the Opposition is performing its roles effectively? It must not only oppose. It must hold the Government to account in a constructive way. If that’s done it can cause the Government to adopt positive proposals.

An opposition represents an alternative government and is responsible for challenging the policies of the government and producing different policies where appropriate. Being in opposition is not just about opposing the government for opposing sake.

There are occasions when the opposition should agree with the government if a policy has wide support and is soundly based. In situations where it is in the wider public interest that a problem is fixed, the opposition and government must have mutual agreement, as Clarence Rambharat and Rushton Paray have demonstrated after the passage of Tropical Storm Bret.

The opposition must build public opinion in its favour by suggesting alternative programmes and policies which could take the country forward to the enjoyment of better standards of living.

This is not the same as asking for $100 million for flood victims after the Government has set up a $25 million fund to assist people, knowing fully well the country is in a cash-strapped position.

A constructive opposition would place the emphasis on discussion, asking more questions, assisting in the resolution of problems, helping in amendments and passage of important Bills. It must unite with the government on issues of national interest.

At the same time, an opposition must warn or bring into national focus issues that a government is not addressing. It is not only about calling for a “minister’s throat.” One can look back at the FATCA legislation drama in our Parliament.

If there were early, positive and meaningful discussions, the anxiety faced due the deadlines given by the US Government would have been avoided.

In this case both the Opposition and the Government had regimental positions and shifted only in the “dying hour.” While the government is the decision maker, the opposition is the scrutinizer. It is supposed to be the voice of the people. It should act as a watchdog and criticise and correct the government when it is wrong.

I am minded to remind the Opposition in this country that a disruptive opposition grouping opposes everything for the sake of opposing. This is not good for democracy nor is it good for the taxpayers; it simply avoids discussion.

An opposition must not be viewed as an enemy. An opposition also has the responsibility of creating awareness among citizens about specific issues of national importance and raising their political consciousness levels.

UNC be forewarned.

CUTHBERT SANDY Point Fortin