Change is necessary, even welcomed

THE EDITOR: One cannot help but notice the bacchanal stemming from the individual who decided to “cross the floor” last week.

I have read some of the many bitter comments posted on social media. I cringed as the individual was called every name under the sun, with “traitor” being a popular one.

I must make mention of the so-called “precedent” raised in a few of these comments about the two gentlemen who, some years ago, crossed the floor in Parliament.

For the record, these two events are incomparable. The two men who “crossed the floor” were elected representatives. The decision to elect them as representatives was made by the people. In which case, their decision to cross the floor was not entirely theirs; it belonged to the people who elected them.

Had that matter reached the courts then, it would have reflected this.

In this recent decision, this individual was never elected to any office, he was merely selected.

Given the existing political/ethnic divide, the issue of race overshadowed everything, becoming the primary concern. Calling individual names and referring to him as a “snake in the balisier” does nothing to bridge this political/ethnic divide.

Central to the issue is that many people believed the individual had no business “crossing the floor,” and in doing so, he became a “traitor.”

Someone recently remarked that the one thing both parties have managed to do since independence is to keep the nation divided. .

The reaction to Obika's decision was akin to the view that once an individual aligns himself or herself with a particular party, that individual commits for the rest of his/her political career.

While crossing the floor is discouraged within one’s own party, individuals are often incentivised to do precisely so by their opponents. The incentives come in many forms and behind closed doors.

In society, there have been "crossings" in many other instances, yet there is not the level of outcry and bitterness we see when a political opponent suddenly becomes an ally and vice versa.

People leave one religion and join another. On other occasions, we have individuals abandoning all religion to become atheists.

Perhaps if we showed just a fraction of the level of disgust we do when politicians cross the floor to those couples who break their marriage vows, we might see fewer divorces and have more couples working on their relationships. Children won’t have to be juggling between two houses or living with a single parent.

Ironically, the world is what it is because people reserve the right to change their minds, be it in relationships, religion, career, citizenship and yes, political affiliations.

Our world is ever changing, so why can't we also be flexible and open to change? Change is necessary at times to address the complexities of our world.

On one hand, we readily acknowledge there are too many dinosaurs in influential positions who need to go. But on the other hand, we go out of our way to discredit the youth for taking bold initiatives.

Older heads must come to terms with the idea that loyalty is not tenured.

RUDY CHATO PAUL, SR

D'Abadie