The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune

For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. So states Newton’s third law of motion.

The four FNM MPs who deluded themselves that they had some imaginary obligation of conscience to buck their party on the 2018/2019 budget should do well to ponder this theory of physics and of life. They carelessly put themselves in political jeopardy by grandstanding against their party at a time when probity and party unity were aligned.

It is a safe bet that some of them probably only wanted to use the occasion to drop licks on their leader. Others were probably just naïve and may have thought that a budget was a platform to prove their independence. It is not.

The Member of Parliament for Centreville had already shown his impetuous nature when he had to be fired by the Prime Minister earlier this year. The Member for Pineridge has a history of recklessness having chastised his PM for having the audacity to want to help Dominican children made homeless by a hurricane last year.

The Member for Golden Isles might have allowed the fawning of a loyal radio audience to delude his judgment, under the guise of being what his constituents wanted. But the saddest cast of all was the up-and-coming Member for Bain and Grants Town. His political firmament shined brightest and no doubt the PM would have harboured plans to showcase him as the embodiment of youthful potential.

True leadership calls for politicians to explain to their constituents why a vote they must cast is in the national interest. Abraham Lincoln exemplified this when he stood up against slavery, paying the ultimate sacrifice for his bravery.

The fundamental role of government is to make tough decisions in the best interest of the people. Nothing lays out the principles, philosophy and programme of a government and of a political party more than its annual budget.

The budget is a confidence document and if Parliament were to reject the budget the government would fall. The Prime Minister would be seen to no longer command the respect of the majority of the members in the House if he was to be defeated on a budget bill. It is a serious matter and practitioners of the Westminster model of parliamentary democracy impose heavy sanctions on those who step out of line on a budget vote.

Party discipline is therefore strictly enforced and any member of the parliamentary caucus who doesn’t toe the line does so at his or her own peril. Just as convention holds that all members of the government vote for the budget, it also expects that all members of the opposition will vote against it.

The fact that four members of the FNM defied the government shows their disrespect for the Whip process as much as it underscores that some of our elected officials don’t know or simply don’t care to understand how the system works.

The most important votes taken in the House of Commons at Westminster are underlined three times in the order papers telling members that they must fall in line with their party on the vote or risk being kicked out, with the technical term being “withdrawn from the whip”. Both the government and the opposition deploy this disciplinary tool.

What is more egregious is the fact that two of the four are junior ministers, parliamentary secretaries for whom a protocol exists demanding their vote on most bills in our House of Assembly.

The party can give its parliamentary caucus no higher instruction than a three-line whip. Because it is so important, it is usually reserved for matters like the budget or entrenched manifesto policies that the party ran on.

Governing party MPs are expected to vote with their party. In very few instances they can abstain from voting. The government may choose to use only a one- or two-line whip on a particular bill. If they differ with the government on a three-line whip they must cross the floor and vote with the opposition.

Conscience votes are allowed on matters like abortion or capital punishment, the so-called life and death bills. The government cannot broker a free vote on its budget.

Political purists will agree that there is no such thing as a free vote in the House of Assembly. MPs are always tethered to the political parties on whose back they were carried in parliament. They are free to speak as they wish but they have no discretion on whether to support the budget.

The four rebel MPs presented themselves as a clear and present threat to the authority of the Prime Minister leaving him with no choice but to relieve them of their positions in his government. In voting no on the budget, they signaled a loss of confidence in their own party and its leader. They must go.

The men argued that they voted against the increase in the Value Added Tax. But the tax was but a part of the overall budget and in voting no they joined the PLP in attempting to bludgeon the government’s fiscal agenda.

There is talk in some quarters that the Prime Minister must be merciful in dealing with these obstructionist MPs. Leniency now flies in the face of the Manual of Cabinet and Ministry Protocol, a breach for which the FNM lashed the PLP when they were in opposition. It would be the height of hypocrisy for the PM to ignore it just like Perry Christie did.

These four men will now have enough time to contemplate their foolish attempt at regicide. Forgiveness is the province of the bishop. For the king, however, disciplinary action is the only comeuppance for vacuous behaviour.

THE GRADUATE

Nassau,

June 25, 2018.