Overnight from London, UK. Arrive 10.15 local time. First impression on seeing the islands and the reefs and beaches from the air, “this is a beautiful place”. The sun will, presumably, show itself later. This is, after all, the dry season.
Second impression formed on the drive from airport to hotel. Infrastructure, roads, shops, houses, seems to be in fairly good condition but beginning to show the first signs of dilapidation. This happens in the UK when authorities run out of money. Is it happening here? Problems with the economy are no secret. Why else would the IMF be taking an interest in the Seychelles?
Third impression. The people I meet are warm and friendly but they do not wear the permanent smile of the African and the Caribbean. Why? Leading to the fourth impression. Geography aside, the Seychelles are Caribbean, not African. Add the steel bands and, of course the cricket and the visitor could easily believe that they were in the West Indies.
“Instant experts” from overseas are not welcome anywhere around the globe. Nobody has the right to go to another land and to seek to tell its people how they should live their lives. Not the Americans, not the UK, not the EU, not even the UN. A well-wishing guest cannot help noticing, though, in the home of a friend or as a friend in another country, when all is not as it ideally should be.
My impression, as a visitor from another parliament, is that in reality The Seychelles remains a one-party State. Many nations, with an over-large government majority, become, effectively, “one-party”. It is arguable that the UK, under Margaret Thatcher and subsequently under Mr. Blair, began to show the symptoms of government that believed that it would be there for ever and could do as it pleased irrespective of the views of the minority parties or the people.
In the UK, however, The people have a voice and with a second chamber and a judiciary that is independent of the executive. There are checks and balances to prevent the abuse of absolute power. And there is, of course, the certain knowledge within the ranks of Members of Parliament and the electorate that governments can, and will, change. That is important in the cause of a free democracy.
Also important is an independent media.
Most politicians have a love/hate relationship with journalists and in my case, in the light of a cynicism born of twenty-five years in parliament; there is probably more hate than love! I will, nevertheless, defend the cause that a free democracy requires a free press. Governments have no business running the editorial policy of television, radio or newspapers. Journalism is analytical and critical. Everything else, including our own UK Government Information Service, is propaganda and should be treated as such and regarded with a healthy and vigorous skepticism if not contempt. An administration seeking to be regarded, internationally, as free and democratic must first surrender every vestige of media control and manipulation.
During my brief stay in the Seychelles I have seized the opportunity to visit several parliamentary constituencies, talk with many Members of the Assembly and with The Speaker who issued the invitation for us to visit and engage in an exchange of views.
A Speaker’s lot is not a happy one in any parliamentary assembly that I have ever had the good fortune to attend. If the Patron Saint of Speakers were to personally take the chair then I am quite sure that he (or she) would face the charge of being partisan and biased and probably from all sides simultaneously. In the UK The Speaker, upon election by the whole House of Commons and without interference from the executive, surrenders his or her party-political membership and ceases to campaign. That does not prevent accusations of bias but it does remove some of the obvious and potential conflicts of interest. I recommend the consideration of such a convention in every parliament that I visit.
Having said that, I believe - and I appreciate that this is not a view that will be universally shared! - that Mr. Speaker Herminie intends to be fair and wants to propel his country forward into a more genuinely democratic and multi-party future. Whether those around him feel likewise only time will tell and it takes a very brave man to set off down a road that must, if it is to reach its objective, lead in time inevitably to regular and peaceful changes of government. Nevertheless, and without wishing to irreparably damage their political careers by naming them, I have been privileged to meet a number of newly-elected young, bright Members of the Assembly on both sides of the existing House and others, not yet elected, members of the Democratic Party who are not encumbered with the traditions and baggage of a one-party past. If they, from all three parties, (and in passing it is a huge sadness that the DP, denied representation in the Assembly, was not represented at our seminars) are The Future and if this new guard can make common cause, then a change to a more representative democracy, if not immediate, is at least on the cards .I wish them all well.
Roger Gale has been a Conservative Member of the UK parliament since 1983, fighting and winning his seat against all-party opposition in six general elections. A former television Producer and Director and current affairs journalist, he has served as an international election observer in South Africa, Mozambique, Ghana, The Gambia, Kenya, Outer Mongolia and Macedonia. He has acted as a facilitator in parliamentary seminars in Namibia, Sierra Leone and Canada as well as, recently, in the Seychelles. He currently serves as a senior member of the Speaker’s panel of chairmen (UK)
CAVEAT. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the author and should not be construed as the views of other members of the UK delegation or of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association.