Share this

Friday, December 11, 2015

‘What should define a well meaning opposition’

Bedlam in a Parliament

What is it with the discussions in the parliament across the world? I just saw a video of bedlam and chaos in a country’s parliament. Next I see few more more trailers posted below from other countries and the scene is no better or worse. The comments below the video are even more revealing. Nearly every user from every region and place has the SAME old thing to say - how even their place is no better, just the dresses and places are different. Instead of going into the usual blame game and ‘how all politicians should be bundled up and thrown out’ I want to ask something different - something more 'theoretical' and that requires deeper introspection.
The question is simple, 'What should define a well meaning opposition'?
In other words what are the policies where parties could differ, and what are those issues on which there should be no argument or chest thumping i.e. they are a given.
Before reaching out for answers, I want you all to consider a couple of things. There is an inherent paradox (or dichotomy, if you will) in asking such a question YET so relevant and crucial in defining of a functioning house. This is under the assumption that all members are conscientious on both sides of the table (hence the word 'theoretical' :) ).
I am bringing this issue because, today I find many a party (be it anywhere) at cross-roads with the system that sustains it. Someone chest beats about patriotism as if it were their birthright while someone assumes they are indeed the people to think of equality of existence for all. Things are so bad that yet another party claims it right to being 'clean' and working for the people. All these things should NOT be defining the basis of a party formation but should be common across the board.
I could rattle on BUT what do you think?

No comments :