The function of the opposition has often been interpreted literally to mean opposing almost everything.
The Collins Essential English Dictionary defines the phrase “to oppose” as: “If you oppose someone, or oppose what they want to do, you disagree with what they want to do and try to prevent them from doing it.”
In democratic political parlance this has come to mean opposing for the sake of opposing, just because this or the other has been defined as an opposing entity (political party). Thus, most of the time parties are hell-bent on opposing without at any point looking soberly at the merits and demerits of the matter subjected to a policy or political debate.
In this vogue, most of the times in modern political settings, opposition is defined and seen as the function of only the political party or parties that have been defined as such.
Hence the polarisation on issues of debate between the ruling party and the parties defined as opposition; to the extent that there is usually no opposition from within any incumbent governing party, lest the function of the so-called opposition party or parties be usurped in the process.
More often than not, with such a hackneyed definition of opposition, those with sober views on any policy matter within the governing party, the backbenchers, are usually functionally lame ducks – just because the role of opposing has been ill-defined, construed, misinterpreted and understood to solely be seen in a negative light, and to be the domain of the so-called opposition political party or parties.
Ordinarily, given a correct interpretation, the role and function of each and every parliamentarian in a free and democratic environment, irrespective of her/his political ticket, is and should be to provide the machinery of governance with the necessary and requisite checks and balances.
This denotes opposing when needs be and supporting when any policy matter is of consequence to the benefit of the greater majority. Opposing in this sense means looking at the ultimate good of any policy proposal, in terms of positively benefitting the broader citizenry, irrespective of the genesis of the proposal, whether it is from the governing party or from the opposition political parties.
This ordinarily should mean that the catchword should be constructive engagement of all role players in the democratic environment to make a success of any policy proposal in the interest of the broader nation.
This is – as opposed to the current common understanding of opposition as something outlandish – only there to oppose and castigate, which makes a mockery and travesty of democratic dispensations.
Oppositions, period, are there to oppose. And the governing party, including the backbenchers, as nothing more than just “rulers” by any means necessary. Even to the extent of filibustering and bulldozing motions and bills through, even when it is obvious that they would in the final analysis work against the best interest of those they are purported to serve, be they the minority or the majority.
The yardstick of any policy proposal is not so much whether it would be to the benefit of the greater majority, but whether it is in the interest of those who need upliftment, minorities or majorities. This is as long the benefits, whether to the majorities or minorities, do not outweigh the costs.
One may particularly be motivated in illuminating the role and function of especially lawmakers, at whatever level, of town and regional councils, National Assembly or National Council. All representatives on these councils, when elected, have one and the same mission, to work for the common good of those who elected them.
Who and what political party, or association, at any particular point in time dominates any legislative chamber is immaterial. What is cardinal is that all have been elected to jointly serve the public good.
Reference is hereby made particularly to the farce of the Aminuis Constituency councilor being consciously and purposefully seconded to the National Council to induce a semblance of opposition.
This is in the archaic belief of opposition, oblivious to the fact that the essence is checks and balances, and that this does not necessarily need to be provided by the opposition, but it is incumbent on any member of any of the two august houses, regional council or town council, who once assuming such a role, has to serve the broader public.
A single National Unity Democratic Organisation (NUDO) soul in the National Council, or that of any other political formation, or so-called opposition political party for that matter, as long as the role and functions of members of this august house are pigeonholed and polarised into “ruling” and “opposition” entities, cannot be expected to be of much consequence in terms of serving the broader public, let alone that of his constituency – other than joining the chorus of fellow lame-duck backbenchers.
This is until the role and function of legislators is redefined and backbenchers from the governing party come to the party by wholeheartedly fulfilling their role and function of holding the government of the day to account.