The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

KINDLY permit me to share my comments on the above-captioned.

We have witnessed the removal of the Leader of the Opposition through a rarely used Constitutional provision. The result has led to the elevation of Ms Loretta Butler-Turner as Official Leader of the Opposition.

I congratulate her on her historic achievement and notwithstanding its constitutionality I find the process which led to her elevation ugly and filled with unmitigated arrogance and unbridled ambition.  

This Constitutional provision was not intended to be used to pursue one’s personal political ambition or to remove Leaders because one may view him or her as ineffective. Our Constitution really prefers and supports the position that democratic processes should be respected regardless of the results they yield.

Ineffective leaders should be removed at the ballot box, unless, of course, they become tyrants or despots

Mr Minnis was democratically elected to lead his party and I am sure it was the expectation of party members and rightly so, including those who participated in this downright petty and ugly exercise, that he would lead the opposition in parliament for better or for worse.

While I too share the view that his performance has been ineffective in parliament, he was nevertheless, chosen by his party to lead them. That first and foremost should be respected. The Opposition individually and collectively has been ineffective.

Do not seek to game me about the difference between the Party leader and Opposition Leader in Parliament. I know the distinction well and, I also know when it is being used to suit ones’ end or to carry out agendas.

Let’s not split hairs. This notion by the dissatisfied seven who resorted to this foul exercise to wrestle leadership from Dr Minnis under the guise that they are only exercising their democratic right and are looking out for the good of the country is nothing more than a ploy to achieve through a constitutional ploy what they fail to achieve through the party democratic machinery in convention. It is also revengeful.

If they respected Democracy and what the Constitution seeks to promote and protect, they would have respected the democratic wishes of party members.

Being members of parliament do not give them the right or authority to usurp or overrule the democratic wishes of party members.

When one does not agree with the party position or find its leader undesirable, then one ought to resign and move on. Don’t get stubborn and arrogant and all self-righteous about putting country first.

If one does not want to be bound by the dictates of a political party, then one ought to enter parliament as an independent. He or she will then be free to fly solo and go off on a frolic of his or her own. One ought not to use the goodwill and resources of the party machinery to be elected and then decide that they will go on a frolic under the guise of putting country first.

CLAUDE HANNA

Nassau,

December 18, 2016.