Parliament is an institutional bridge between state and society. Through Parliament the legislative workings, oversight provisions, and representative functions of Barbadian governance, is carried out and validated on behalf of the citizens. This process leads to a strengthening of value expectation around the central liberal democratic thrust of accountability, transparency, and participation. Based upon summary observations, it is crucial that debates regarding integrity, corruption, and responsibility ought not to be rendered useless by the instability of pampering to narrow interests around the street corners and byways. No-confidence motions ought not to be tools used for vain discrediting of representatives of the people unless there is clear evidence to support such a move. Rather, it is in the Parliament of Barbados that concerns in relation to corruption and the need for ethical codes in relation to the integrity of politicians and public officials should have its most conspicuous viewing and ethical fair-play for all publics. So why has this question of corruption and integrity become topical in recent months? Why have certain allegations and base innuendoes been allowed to fester under the streetlight when indeed recourse is constitutionally riveted in the integrity of Barbados’ constitutional provision? Our House of Assembly (both the Upper and Lower Houses combined) is the fundamental platform of legitimacy and liberty within the institutional pillars of governance in Barbados. It ought to be very noteworthy that the Speaker of the House, in his traditional prudent style, found it disturbing to hear the resolution bandied by Thompson “is in the public domain.” Indeed, Thompson has gone to Canada with a similar message of forlorn, yet he forgets that the Constitution of Barbados gives him a definitive voice in Parliament. Moreover, the disrespect by Thompson to two institutions built on the edifice of our Constitution, namely the House of Assembly and the Speaker of the House, should really invoke an apology for the general public, or face certain rejection at any subsequent elections by those masses who must use their power of the ballot. The Speaker quite rightly contended that “a resolution is not to be determined on the outside.” Indeed, “a great disservice has been done to this House [the Barbados House of Assemble and specifically the Lower House] by the way this matter has been taken to the public and to bring me [the Speaker] into it to give the impression that I have not done what I was supposed to do.” This shows the extent or depth that Thompson would descend in order to have his way at the discredit and disadvantage of others. Like the Speaker, I believe that a “no-confidence motion is a motion that can cause serious harm to the person involved and it is not something that a House should take lightly.” For the sake of justice and fair-play, the debate should get started now without further delay from Thompson. It is sad in our Parliament that a person who is seeking a mandate from the masses to become Prime Minister, he can now choose to attach himself to a chicanery that deflates the nomenclature of being ‘honourable’. Thompson’s strategy or lack thereof is cast on the flimsy support of fortuitousness and personal grandeur – the shadows that have walked alongside Thompson for his entire political career.
Back To News