We may well be witnessing the melt down of the One Bermuda Alliance as a viable opposition party for the wellbeing of this country. However, a day in politics is a long time. The last election showed that the voters wanted the Progressive Labour Party to govern the country with a smashing and decisive victory for them, never mind their previous performance in governance.
To catalogue the state in which this country was left would be redundant at this time; after all, no one seems to want to hear it anyway.
It is so interesting to read all the copy about the rooting out of all United Bermuda Party members from the OBA to save them from political relegation and the wilderness of political obscurity. It is popular to join the refrain that the UBP must go and be allowed to expire unceremoniously with not one tear of sorrow.
You see, Mr Editor, the narrative seems to be that what is left of the UBP is a poison chalice from which the OBA must no longer drink. We hear the smacking of political chops and the gloating by avowed enemies of the OBA, but that is the way it is in grown-up, partisan party support. The thrill of victory and the agony of defeat, in the end, is all that matters.
The new reality is that any opposition to a PLP administration must be free of UBP baggage to be considered viable for any consideration of being the loyal opposition that could be taken seriously. This thinking has found fertile ground indeed in a small but politically ravenous community. How then could it be that a poison chalice for one party be the drink of the gods for another party?
Exactly when can we expect the excommunication of the UBP members that sit so comfortably on the government benches and incredibly in Cabinet? Mr Editor, where is the call for their expulsion and removal? How in the name of political sanity could former “UBPers” be so warmly embraced and promoted in the PLP?
Go figure. We have two former leaders of the UBP who fought valiantly against the PLP for years. With great eloquence and conviction, they fought the fight to keep the country from a PLP victory at the polls. The phrase “hypocrisy on steroids”, Mr Editor, comes to mind when former UBP members can join the PLP as members in the House of Parliament in good standing.
Never mind this is different and all is well; they do not face political execution at all, but are richly rewarded by their new masters.
So then, Mr Editor, when can we expect to see the House cleansed and the remaining members of the UBP asked to remove themselves and complete the death of a bygone era that many say is needed. If hypocrisy in the area of politics could be packaged and sold, we could pay off our national debt and see our economy nicely in the black.
The days of the UBP have clearly passed, but, wait, you get another life. If you, as a former but significant UBP MP, sat in the House, you will receive special dispensation for now joining the PLP.
Mr Editor, even the party faithful seems to have amnesia remembering names such as Wayne Furbert, Kim Swan and Jamahl Simmons with regard to their relationship and former loyalties. No call or mention for their need to go by any of your writers that have, with great vigour, called for the ejection of old-guard relics, with the exception, of course, of the names just mentioned.
My question is why is this so? Have we now concluded that experience and ability can no longer work alongside the energy of our committed and politically ambitious young people?
Clearly, the future belongs to our educated and well-prepared young people, but this one-sided approach seems to suggest that the only party worthy to hold this administration to account must be approved by citizens who have no intention of ever voting for them.
Listening to sentiment since the election, it now appears that a one-party state would be perfectly acceptable. This thinking has never been thought of as being responsible or, more importantly, good for democracy.
WAYNE B. SCOTT