A GUY'S VIEW - Late, or on time?
“It is never too late to become what you might have been.”
– George Eliot.
The ruling Democratic Labour Party recently approved three candidates to contest St. Michael seats that are not now represented by that party. One looks forward to their performance in the coming months.
The timing of the formal approval of these persons was fantastic. In each of those constituencies, the incumbent had four years to demonstrate their worth to the persons that they were elected to represent. The introduction of fresh blood may serve to silhouette their performance so that they can now be judged on what they have accomplished during that time. One might expect the usual pre-election flurry from the sitting Members of Parliament in these areas, but fresh voices may now be raised in pointing out their short-comings.
If history is anything to go by, these new candidates have almost a year to expose their ideas to their constituents. A year is a long time in politics. Those who think that this is a late show are either ignorant of local politics or have blinkered vision. One might reflect on how much time Jonny Tudor had, when he first entered elective politics, to canvass in one of the same constituencies which one of these new candidates is hoping to represent.
The three constituencies in question are all densely populated and can be traversed on foot in their entirety in one day. Of course, to work them thoroughly, more time is needed. For a person who is not the representative, there is no need for a year to touch every soul in these areas and explain one’s programmes. However, it is certainly too short for a sitting representative who was not useful for the four previous years.
Persons not holding these seats should not be carried away and behave as though they are the representatives. A constituency has one representative at a time. They should help where they can without performing the functions of the elected representative.
A sitting representative cannot reasonably justify his or her absence in so closely peopled a constituency and in such a small geographical area. This gives a great advantage to a new candidate who understands the needs of the constituents and is able to articulate solutions.
Absentee representation is not peculiar to the representatives of these constituencies. This may also be true of their colleagues elsewhere and some members of the ruling party. All parliamentarians may be measured by the same yardstick as it regards representation, but with one potentially critical exception: An Opposition member cannot claim to have been bogged down with the duties of state.
On the other hand, the traditional practice of not replacing sitting Members of Parliament may do untold harm to the ruling party if its majority is comprised of persons who have not been good representatives, especially since its supporters are usually more discriminating than those who line up behind the other party. Informed people are more demanding.
It is unheard of for any party in this country to be honest enough to say to a sitting member, thank you for your service, but your continuing in elective politics is not in the party’s best interest at this time. It is strongly suggested that this kind of self-examination is required now. To my mind, it is self-defeating to enter a race with people that you know do not stand a chance of winning. Of course, there is no one who fits this description in either party, so no one will step aside and no one will bell the cat.
The legal argument may be made that Members of Parliament are elected as individuals and there are no parties in Parliament. But this is not about prohibiting a person from continuing to represent his or her constituents or from seeking to continue to do so in the future. It is simply about a party, quite independently of parliamentary responsibilities, deciding who should run for office under its banner at a particular time. The only responsibility of a party in these circumstances is to choose the team that is most likely to gain it success at the polls.
If such a revolutionary approach were to be taken, this is about the time to do it. This distance out from the elections would give replacements ample time to get into the constituencies and build the alliances they need to be successful.
Further, if a representative has done nothing for four years, whatever is done now will bear the taint of political convenience, regardless of how genuine the effort may be. A Barbados Labour Party leader said that Barbadians have short memories, but good administration should not count on that flaw, if it is a flaw.
Returning to the three new candidates, they are persons with excellent chances of winning their seats. They are all indigenous candidates that have the trust of many of the persons in their communities. One could hardly find better candidates for those seats.
These are men that could garner the support of persons in their communities, even if they were not running for political office. In fact, their lives make them ideal for working in the upliftment of their peers. They have demonstrated this propensity in the past.
These candidates are fortunate to have just about the perfect time to work their constituencies. But truth be told, with the full knowledge of other interested parties, some of these persons were working these constituencies for months now. One precariously perched sitting Member of Parliament in one of these constituencies alluded to the work being done by one of these men several weeks ago during the Estimates debate. Apparently, she is already seeing the writing on the wall.
How come every person in the constituency was aware since last year that this newcomer would be the candidate and the person he is replacing did not know? Was he still in touch with the constituency?
But what would be great is if these candidates look beyond winning their seats and seek ways to partner with their people to help them become self-reliant and independent individuals. Too much of our politics is about the dependence of people on gifts and handouts.