Dear Editor

Here we go again with the politicians and the spin-doctors trying once more to lead us down a blind alley. This time the deception is centered on the fall-out from the aborted vote of no confidence in the prime minister.

By now most people are aware that the well-publicised and eagerly anticipated debate on the proposed motion of no confidence took a sudden and unexpected nosedive. In other words, the whole affair ended not with a mighty thunder but a tame whimper.

The premature demise of what was billed as an historical event was due to the indisposition of the leader of the opposition who was also to be the mover of the motion Or so we were told. But no sooner than the information made the news than whispers and rumours began to hit the street that a secret deal had been made to have the motion withdrawn.

The prime minister as I recalled was the first to give the impression that he was not aware or had anything to do with a deal. A similar denial followed just as fast by the leader of the opposition. But just when everybody was prepared to put the matter to rest, the attorney general crept out of the woodwork in a cloak and dagger manner and gamely disclosed on a radio talk show that a prominent opposition member had approached him with a view of cutting a back room deal.

It is hard to know what or who to believe. Everything about the lost motion appears to be riddled with devious political twists and turns. On the one hand, the leader of the opposition would want us accept his words blindly that after nearly a lifetime spent at the top level in Parliament, he was not aware of the rules relating to moving a motion.

On the other hand, the prime minister who has the similar track record in politics as his opposition counterpart was heard to say, that it’s not strange “for a member to miss a sitting from time to time,” when asked about the absence from Parliament of his wayward and recalcitrant  minister. But bear in mind that the occasion was not going to be a regular run of the mill sitting of Parliament, but an extra ordinary debate which could have seen the down fall of his government.

Pardon my effrontery, but it appears to me that both leaders, for whatever reason are feigning ignorance of the parliamentary procedure and machinery. Don’t be fooled they know that in the Westminster model of democracy which we claim to practice here in this country. It would take a divine being to convince me that the prime minister and the leader of the opposition are telling the truth.

If I can know that there is nothing wrong with the government and opposition making secret deals in the dark corridors and hidden passages of parliament, so too do the all players concerned in the shenanigan. Once the interest of the people is not compromised in any way, deal-making in any way is a legitimate practice in getting the business of Parliament done.

Unless the attorney general is part of what appears to be a scheme to pretend ignorance of the system, he would know that if there was any serious intention on the part of the politician who approached him to make a deal, then what he told us transpired was a highly unorthodox method.

By convention both political parties have or should have someone chosen from among their numbers called a “whip”. One of the most important functions of this individual is to make sure of the attendance of members of parliament to vote on crucial issues like a vote of no confidence. Another of his job is to act as the deal-maker or the “usual channel” as is known in parliamentary language.

And don’t forget the role of the speaker to hold a private meeting with the deal-makers. It seems that trying to fool the people has become the order of the day on every issue where politicians on both sides are required to give an honest and truthful answer.

Tell these masters of deception to rewind and play another tune instead. As an aside : it should be clear now to all those who are calling for the errant  minister to be thrown in the lions’ den, that since he was not under the edit of his “Whip”, he had no obligation to be present and can continue to be as disobedience as he sees fit.

The time has come for our members of parliament to act like professional politicians and not amateur schoolboys.