---

In some senses, it's a contradiction.

The Opposition party in a two-party Westminster Democracy has a tough job - it must critique the government and at the same time make its own case for replacing that government.

The UBP, in its reply to the Throne Speech, has done this two-fold job admirably. However, in the process of proposing, in contrast to opposing, an opposition party runs the risk it will be expected to walk the way it talks. As an example, the most radical aspect of the UBP's response has to do with bridging the racial divide. The concept is one I support.

Racial, ethnic and political divisiveness are crippling our community. Unfortunately our version of Westminster, with its first-past-the-post and winner-takes-all rules, political parties are forced to view and treat each other as enemies.

What a waste.

The dilemma it poses is nowhere more evident than in the UBP's response to the Throne Speech. The desire, in principle, to bridge the divide is betrayed by the temptation to score political points.

This is seen in UBP leader Wayne Furbert's reply to the Throne Speech.

Mr. Furbert says he is seeking, "Roads where there is respect for our differences and no tolerance for the polarization and alienation of one another."

He also says, "My friends the most divisive factor in Bermudian life and Bermudian politics in particular relates to us pulling ourselves apart, either because of race or just because we have a difference in our political views.

"There can be neither peace nor sustained prosperity in Bermuda until this crucial issue has been fully addressed and resolved."

These are noble sentiments and represent exactly the sentiments needed to bridge the racial ethnic and partisan divide.

However, in the same reply, read by the same person, are these words relating to the PLP: "[Dr. Brown] is taking over … "a broken government. Their reign has been characterized by lots of talk, many slogans followed by no real action, unless you count changing premiers."

A demeaning dig at leadership changes in the PLP.

Referring to the PLP, its actions or statements as "the same old crowd, bizarre, 'genetically deficient' a disaster, a charade, clueless, inept, indifferent" guarantees a defensive position from the government and will thwart cooperation.

The descriptions used may be factually correct in some cases, but they do not show a level of?respect or tolerance for our differences, nor do they inspire a sense of trust or foster collaboration.

I'm fairly certain Mr. Furbert didn't write the entire UBP reply, so the rancorous words may not be his. However, if he is to make his claim of bridging the divide credible then he must put his stamp more forcefully on the words and behaviour of his colleagues.

I recognise that Mr. Furbert's ideals may not yet be adopted or even accepted by the rest of his party. But if he is going to lead his party back into government with these concepts in their platform, his colleagues will need and be seen to practice what he is preaching.[[In-content Ad]]

---