Political games

By Hilbert Haar

If you have no arguments left or if you fear that the outcome of a debate is not beneficial to your own interests, accusing others of playing political games is always a good idea. At least, that seems to be the way MP Rolando Brison approaches the looming motion of no confidence against VROMI-Minister Egbert Doran.

That motion, an initiative of the Party for Progress, is the ultimate litmus-test for any serving minister. If such a motion gets a majority, the minister has to step down. If the motion fails, the minister can stay in his job as someone who survived a motion of no confidence.

I would think that the politicians that support Minister Doran – theoretically, the eight remaining members of the coalition – would want to get such a motion out of the way as soon as possible.

But no. MP Brison labeled the attempt to make the confidence-question part of Wednesday’s meeting as a political game. Showing that he knows his stuff, he quoted article 61 of the constitution before walking out of the meeting and leaving it without a quorum.

The question is obviously what Brison actually achieved by bringing the meeting to a full stop. Sure, there has been no debate, or a vote, about the motion of no confidence against Minister Doran but that will not be the end of the story. The PFP will undoubtedly come back with the same motion at a later date and what will Brison do then? Flee a parliament meeting for a second time? It does not seem productive to me and it leaves the electorate with this question. Is it possible that coalition-members will vote in favor of the motion and thereby send the minister home? In other words, does MP Brison in fact know that this is a distinct possibility?

For Minister Doran this cannot be a pleasant situation. I mean, you have the confidence of the parliament, or you don’t. There comes a moment when you want to know where you stand.

There is yet another aspect to be considered. Brison made clear that he went into the meeting to find a solution for the situation of suspended MP Claudius Buncamper, who, as we all know, has been sentenced to 32 months of imprisonment and banned for seven years to work as a civil servant. The court found Buncamper guilty of taking bribes from the company that managed the dump. As a result of his conviction, Buncamper was suspended as a member of parliament.

That suspension is based on articles in the constitution, so the actions against Buncamper (who has appealed the conviction) are above board.

And now the parliament wants to debate the very articles in the constitution that sent Buncamper home? MP Brison wants to find a solution for Buncamper’s situation? A solution for somebody who chose self-enrichment over the proper management of the dump?

I cannot wait to read the advice from the Council of Advice on this issue. What are they going to say? Aww, shucks, we can’t have that, a suspended parliamentarian so we have to change the constitution? That’ll be the day.

As far as I am concerned, Buncamper will just have to suck it up. As prosecutors like to say: you do the crime, you do the time. Karma.

And I wonder: who is really playing political games?

###

Related articles:
MPs flee Parliament meeting to frustrate motion of no confidence
PFP: Walkouts Becoming the Norm to Keep Accountability in the Dark