I had read more than half of the article on the TWO LUKES which Colin wrote many editions ago, before I realized that it was satirical. Personally, I enjoy satire whether writing or reading it but, when I first started to write this column several years ago, I was adjured by the editor to cease and desist, because our readers might not understand it and, furthermore, they might not like it and even be upset. I thought, well, how will they develop a liking for it, if it is not offered and, how will our public’s discourse improve if we can’t appreciate satire.
It is decidedly a fact that there is an absence of satire in our public discourse, especially in electioneering, which is prosaic, crude, vulgar and sometimes barbaric. The “slings and arrows” hurled at each other in the political exchanges are so many bricks and stones. The blows they inflict are from so many cudgels and baseball bats. They bruise and they batter. Satire is more effective, like the thrust of a rapier. Also, less Neanderthal-like. Why hammer your adversary when you can render him powerless with a keen cut?
By the way, the level of debate in the House of Representatives leaves much to be desired. Our leaders are at their worst when they discuss the Appropriation Bill and the Budget. There they indulge in wasteful repetition, irrelevance and obloquy in order to make their speeches as long as possible.
The Third Force and the 4-year term
I think that the Editor of Amandala was unduly pessimistic when he wrote these words in the Sunday, January 6, 2008 edition. To wit: “A four-year term is good for us and bad for the politician, which is why we will never get it.”
I believe he reasoned thus. The political party which is in power but nearing the end of its term, may be confident of reelection but would favor a four-year term so that they would have a shorter wait to the next election should they be unsuccessful at the polls. They would favor a four-year term but dare not say so. It would look as if they expect to be defeated. Besides, the first-time candidates of either major political party want their five years so much they can taste the power and privilege which go along with being a member of parliament.
On the other hand, the Opposition Party and its supporters do not wish to hear about any shorter term of office. In fact, they are looking forward to a second five-year term, assuming that they are successful at the polls. None of these people consider what may be good for the people and, by extension, themselves in the long run. That would be contrary to human nature, which has not changed since creation.
In order for us to have things like a four-year term and other objectives which will be good for the whole nation, we have to find a way to express our preference with a strong united voice. Power does reside with the people in a democracy but, at present, the only time we can express it as individuals is on election day. Democracy is wonderful because we the people elect politicians to exercise power on our behalf. Once we have done so, we have to live with our decision for, at the present, five years. Governments cannot be removed during their term of office in a democracy.
We can’t remove the government but we can get them to do the right thing, if we come together in a people’s organization like the proposed Third Force. A Third Force would be more effective in a four-year instead of a five-year term. This is how such an organization could get government and Opposition to amend the Constitution to reduce their term of office.
You cannot exert much influence on government before their mid-term. However, after mid-term, they will be thinking of reelection and will respond more readily to pressure, especially if the organization exerting it has the numbers to tilt the balance in favor of their reelection or otherwise.
It would work like this. The organization (let’s call it the National Society of Belizean Patriots) says to the government, our membership is of one mind that the four-year term is in the best interests of the nation. We will support the party that makes a commitment to putting it to the people to decide in a referendum. If the government says no, the Opposition will say yes and we support the Opposition. If the government says yes, and the Opposition says no, we support the government for reelection. We know, of course, that neither the government nor Opposition, by itself, can amend the Constitution to give effect to their commitment. But, in a situation like the one hypothetised, which government or Opposition in its right mind will say no? Good sense dictates that they will both agree, so that 30,000 NSBP members, or a significant amount of them, will not go to the polls with blood in their eyes.
Let freedom ring
Freedom will ring loud and clear when the voices of our best citizens are raised to inform and guide us, so that we may make wise decisions in the upcoming general elections. Most of our citizens of high integrity and principles, capable of wise counsel and imbued with a deep love of their country, have remained silent when matters of paramount importance to the well being of the nation are being considered. “This is the time for all good men to come to the aid of the nation.” I think it is the duty of every citizen of good will to share his views on all matters of concern with his countrymen and women.
Every citizen capable of reason and good judgement owes it to our country to join in the public discourse on matters of material interests. This includes members of the clergy. They can and should do so as individual citizens, and no one should deny them that right. Clergymen are primarily concerned with the spiritual needs of their flock, but they should also be concerned with the well being of the whole man, which is both material and spiritual.
Consider this a call to arms, not to violent engagement but to a battle against all the forces which would do harm to the body politic.