Reconciliation. … Which One?

29.MAR.11

EDITOR: The term reconciliation has, somewhat, had new relevance in our land these days. Relevance, which to my mind was earlier raised by the Prime Minister, in a long rambling radio address, by his Ministerial appointment, and more recently by intervention of the Christian Council of Churches, after meeting with the Government and agreeing to intercede on this premise.{{more}}

The definition of Reconciliation ranges among the following: Settlement, Understanding, Squaring-off, Resolution, Compromise, Reunion, Ceasefire, Bringing together, or Appeasement. Here are three references to reconciliation: (1) The ending of conflict and the renewing of friendly relationship between disputing people or groups. (2) The making of two or more conflicting things consistent or compatible to each other (e.g. as with one’s deeds to principle).(3) Christian forgiveness or Roman Catholic sacrament for absolving sin, through confession and penance (Penance could mean: reparation, forfeit, apology or self-punishment)

I have no grouse with the Christian Council leading a call for reconciliation; after all reconciliation is just one part of forgiveness. Christians are asked to turn the other cheek, 70 times seven (numbers representing a spiritual code recommended by scripture for complete forgiveness). In order to bring about complete healing; first there is repentance, then comes restoration, the final part required for healing is reconciliation. Like a ring or complete circle, the three parts are inter-related, absolutely necessary and not mutually exclusive of each other.

Through an earlier radio address, the PM attempted to define his personal meaning of reconciliation, and by adding he was not interested in any “slap at the cheek business”, the PM also implied he was not interested in forgiveness (turning the other cheek) or the Christian perception thereof. So, the question to be asked is: what kind of reconciliation are we speaking of? And, reconciliation between whom? Is it between the PM and his Catholic religion; the PM and the Christian Council; the PM and NDP; or between Government and citizenry?

Reconciliation implies some shortcoming. What is the shortcoming? Will ULP still be propagating lies about the Opposition Leader’s insatiable quest for power? Or will ULP subject to the Law, any pending misdeeds to their own account? What credence could the nation attribute to the Prime Minister without some statement or act of contrition?

Would the term reconciliation include reparation for the injury suffered by Parliamentarians and Vincentians, which was a consequence for civil disobedience displayed in the House and the streets on March 3rd, 2011?

Wasn’t the Prime Minister adequately advised by council, that passing the amendments was unjust, untimely and consequential? Were the amendments not the PM’s premeditated, representation of his own reconciliation to the court cases filed against ULP candidates? If not so, for which purpose did the PM create the portfolio or ministry? One can easily conclude that the Prime Minister knew all along, his motives for changing our laws were unjust and wrong, and leaves one wondering what are the PM’s next moves or motive today?

Reconciliation