Mister Chair, Mister President of the Senate and Madam Speaker of the House of Assembly, Deputy Prime Minister, Distinguished delegates from regional Parliaments abroad and from The Bahamas, ladies and gentlemen.

On behalf of my colleagues in the Opposition, I wish to add a word of welcome to you at this most important conference. It is an honour and a privilege to have been asked to say a few words this morning. But let me say that I hope that while you are here you will get a chance to see more of our country than the delegate’s hall. I hope when you leave that you will carry with you not only the memories of a successful conference but fond memories of this country and the people of The Bahamas.

Your theme, “ Challenges Facing the Regional Parliaments in the 21^st Century ”, is most appropriate and relevant. And it provides me with an opportunity this morning to lay before you a number of thoughts for your consideration on where we should be headed as a region and how we can design policies and programmes that will inure to better public policy, ultimately improving the lives of the people we govern.

I wish, therefore, in this respect to encourage each delegate to think outside the box, outside the traditional constructs. The 21^st century provides us with an unprecedented opportunity to make a new beginning in so many areas. It is a line of demarcation, that can lead to the uplifting of our societies, through the harnessing of international capital and the upgrading of the education and skills of our people. We ought to make a pledge then in this and other fora to all of our people throughout the region, that we will stand at that line of demarcation and embrace on their behalf all of the opportunities which that line provides.

A generation ago, a cohort of national leaders emerged throughout the region. Their goal was the assertion of the independence and sovereignty of the people who they governed. I do not think that any one, except the most reactionary forces questioned the right of the peoples from Bermuda in the north to Trinidad in the south to sovereign independence. Some came to the idea later than others. Some have still not yet arrived. But the feeling was that unquestionably we all marched inexorably toward independence.

Independence has served us well. We on the face of it became the masters of our own fate, responsible for defense and foreign affairs. We accepted the models of national Parliaments designed by the British, and then we went to work. But today, the world has shifted. The developed world that designed the construct of colonialism, and then acceded to the demands for sovereign independence in the face of unrelenting demands, are now engaged in redefining the nature of the sovereign relationship with our states.

Because they have the money and the power to do so, we appear to be facing a new threat to our sovereignty. The question each Parliamentarian must ask today, and I would hope at this conference, is what does our sovereignty mean today. Is it just a matter of the domestic control of our affairs, or is it what the developed world concedes to us in the power equation. This question is most appropriate in these days of mutual legal assistance treaties, the right of hot pursuit; deporting known criminals back to our territories; and even forcing changes in our laws that the domestic markets do not accept.

Even as we speak, our national leaders are engaged in a new kind of face off with the developed world, whether on the state of the financial services sector, on tax issues, on money laundering and drug policy. Or whether on complex questions of trade, tariffs and the movement of labour and capital. And at each step of the way, it appears that we are conceding, and some of the Caribbean’s foremost intellectuals have been arguing that we may have even conceded that sovereignty that we thought we had obtained one generation ago.

So in this connection, you have to consider: how sovereign are the Parliaments in the region.

And then there is a related question that I raise for your consideration, that is the question of the strength of our democracies. We have to ask ourselves whether or not the present state of institutional and electoral politics as practiced in our countries continues to be relevant to our societies, in the sense that the institutional Parliamentary results accurately reflect the state of the wishes of the electorate.

Some may argue that this is a loser’s lament. But one must ask the question whether or not in so many of our countries the lop-sided electoral results in the Parliament as against the actual popular vote, serves the good governance of the country. That is why in our country there is so much talk about constitutional reform, to redefine the institutional arrangements on such issues as the delimitation of boundaries, the financing of campaigns, and limiting the influence of foreign money.

The British wrote into our constitutions the concept of the Leader of the Opposition and an official opposition. The policy behind it was that while the majority has its way, the minority gets its say. And that no Leader of a Government would act on important matters of national interest without consulting the Leader of the Opposition, whether or not the constitution actually called for it. That a national leader would be able to clearly distinguish between what is party political and what is in the national interest. This is a problem throughout the region, and the question that ought to be asked is whether the solution is writing into our constitutions more rules and conventions, or whether there ought to be a massive investment in public education on how issues of public policy ought to be decided.

Indeed, it is important to note at this juncture the emergence of non-governmental organizations, so-called NGO’s, in the political process. These NGOs are emerging as vital partners in the governance of all of our countries, often displacing official Opposition parties in terms of actual influence. Clearly the broader participation is to be welcomed, but some have argued that it lends itself to ad hoc governance, being a less stable way to approach the making of public policy.

I wish you to consider these matters, and also note that I have been in touch with David Thompson, the Leader of the Opposition in Barbados, and through an intermediary with my counterpart in Jamaica, with a view to organizing a conference of Opposition leaders to discuss these and other matters of concern.

I would say in terms of the Caricom arrangements that there has been of late a recognition by heads of Government of the role of the Opposition in governance and the development of civil society. The Secretary General of Caricom for example has been given the mandate to brief Leaders of the Opposition on developments with regard to Caricom.

I leave these few words with you this morning for your consideration. I certainly hope that throughout the region we are able to establish new paradigms for the 21century. We have a duty to the present generation to do so, and we have an even greater duty to pass on better societies to our yet unborn. I thank you for your patient consideration and please a have a good conference.

BACK