The course of local politics has forced me and many others to look beyond the immediate horizon and towards the wider system. The term ‘opposition’ is a name given to elected members of parliament who are not in government, and should no longer be in use. As shocking as this sometimes feels, the ‘opposition’ side of a parliament’s job is not to oppose for opposition’s sake.
The whole objective of having opposition members is to have a house that reflects the different and diverse views of the people of a given democratic state, so that they may be equally represented. Furthermore, the actual job of a member of the opposition is to hold the government accountable and to offer a different perspective on issues and their solutions in a given area. If it aligns with a member or party, they can agree and support a government’s proposals. The very use of the term ‘opposition’ invites conflict.
The very use of the word invites disunity. Different parliamentary houses are usually divided by party, or no party, whether you are a sitting member of government or if your party is in government and you are not, and if you are not in government at all, but this alone does not invite disunification; it provides categories for organisation but not polarisation.
The very use of the word 'opposition' invites conflict and deliberate differences of opinion. Therefore, why are we so surprised when the voices of the represented are not carried or reflected in a parliament where our very diction invites disarray?
In a professional and mature capacity, accountability for one’s own actions must be taken. If taking responsibility for a particular form of conduct is met with failure, then all blame will crush the very word' opposition' itself.
It is the responsibility of each member of parliament to control their actions and to conduct themselves in a parliamentary manner, regardless of the part of the House they may sit in. Failure to do so results in a discord in democratic motivation, in other words, an almighty shouting match, or clips that become famous pieces of pop culture for all the wrong reasons.
Furthermore, parliamentary proceedings come to a complete standstill. On the other hand, I must also mention the opportunity that opposition presents to unsuccessful parties or individuals.
Opposition allows parties time to step back and consider their direction and identity. It allows them time to define themselves in the aftermath of an election that was: a six-month accumulation of bad luck, a result of disorganisation and a weak campaign, or a time where it was just more popular to favour a particular party or belief. Time in opposition allows parties or individuals a chance to distinguish themselves from their colleagues or rivals in the house.
At this stage, I understand that my argument so far sounds hypocritical. It is a call for change, with at least some reason, but nonetheless a call for change without a solution. My counterproposal to the term ‘the opposition’ is ‘The Tribunary’. The word comes from Ancient Rome, relating to the plebeian body that held the Senatus accountable. Tributary allows opposition a place, but not priority or a predetermined perspective.
