THE EDITOR, Sir:
THERE IS, in my view, some faulty reasoning being peddled in relation to the recent so-called 'bold' move by Mrs. Simpson Miller. It is being said that her boldness was in not 'toeing the party line' thereby demonstrating independence of thought.
The error here is that a necessary distinction has not been made between a party line and Government policy. The budget is presented to Parliament based on the policies of Government developed through the Cabinet. Mrs. Simpson Miller, as a Cabinet Minister, and every such minister, must be seen as having developed the policies underlining the budget.
If she was sidelined in that process, the country should know. If her view did not get majority support, that is not being sidelined. Had she been sidelined, her principled stand should have been to resign and state the reason publicly. If she had a fundamental difference with the policies to the extent that she could not publicly defend them, then again, if she is principled, a resignation is automatic.
In relation to 'toeing party line', that behaviour refers to a party member/supporter who blindly endorses a party position even though fundamentally opposed to it and cannot in anyway be visited with authorship of the position. Not so for a Cabinet Member. If Mrs. Simpson Miller cannot accept, or worse yet, understand this basic distinction and does not support the concept of collective responsibility, how could she lead a Westminster-style Cabinet Government? Does she believe as Prime Minister she could publicly vote against a Cabinet decision or publicly refuse to support it and remain Prime Minister? Her behaviour is for cheap popularity.
I am, etc.,
R. REID
ramr_ja@yahoo.com
Kingston
Via Go-Jamaica
