A recent history of pairing

History has this wonderful habit of repeating itself. The governing rule ought to be that we are to try to learn from the past, be it recent or otherwise. Truth be told, however, there will always be somebody out there who thinks that the past has been forgotten or that he can re-invent the past. It is within this context that we must examine the issue that has arisen lately with regard to pairing in parliament.

Pairing is an unofficial system which has not always found favour in democracies. At present in certain countries it is viewed with a degree of circumspection since it can be abused of. What pairing under our parliamentary system entails is an agreement whereby the government and the opposition pair off respective members of Parliament. This would allow the individual member of Parliament to abstain from voting when his opposite or corresponding member from the other side of the house cannot vote due to illness or is away on travel commitments, or some other reason.

In the past few years the Labour party in opposition has never brought into question the issue of pairing. This mature attitude now requires re-visiting. It is now reasonable and expected not to forget the attitude taken by the Nationalist Party when in opposition between 1996 to 1998. The Nationalist Party then decided to do away with pairing. The obvious reasoning behind this was that with a one-seat majority in Parliament, the best manner in which to stultify the then Labour government was to non-pair. This would entail the necessity of all MPs on the government side being present at all times, or at least for crucial votes.

Much water has passed under the bridge since then. The PN took office and the MLP acceded to the government's request for pairing agreements. This was found all the more necessary in the last five years due to the increasing commitments of MPs at EU level. Still, are we to forget the declaration by one of the most respected ministers that with a five-seat majority it was a waste of time to even bother to discuss matters in Parliament?

Now, the five-seat majority is down to one with the difference that in 1996 the one-seat majority reflected the MLP's 7,633 vote majority at the time, while now the PN majority is of less than 1,600 votes. Pairing is really an issue now! No "waste of time" defiant talk!

The proper way might be to not pair for the time being and then to wait for Parliament to re-convene after summer to see where we all stand. The MLP is currently in the middle of an election which is vital for the MLP and for the nation as a whole. Much will depend on who the leader of the opposition will be. Much will also depend on the respect shown to him by the government. Independently of the fact that the election was won by the PN this does not mean it has gained the respect of the nation. It has basically shown it is better at running an election campaign. With Parliament not yet meeting, the government has already given us a sample of the regard in which it holds the opposition - vide the Partnership for Peace adhesion without anybody being consulted.

The Labour Party will act in the right manner. Which is why it is probably only just, with history in mind, one ought to let the matter of pairing wait a while, lest we be reminded that, in this regard at least, history does not paint a pretty picture of the Nationalist Party.