For whom does the majority opposition speak?

Dear Editor,

The green ranger continues to show his colours, which evoke a state of confusion in those who see and listen attentively to pronouncements hardly founded in organisational rationality.

Why is it that one is continually left with a sense of hollowness, which is complemented by a spate of ineffective follow-ups, if any?

How in the case of the most recent interaction with foreign diplomats can one lay stress upon a one nation concept, when at the same time the party representation is inclusive only of the PNC, to the stark exclusion of the other members of an elusive partnership? For whom then does the majority opposition speak?

Intricated in this display of single-mindedness must be the question as to what extent the partners were consulted on this major policy issue, and indeed whether a green paper on such policy was formally debated and agreed within the shadows of the organisation. It is not unfair to speculate, however glibly, if, and why, in this instance foreigners were given preferential treatment over not only formal partners and excluded Lindeners, but indeed other substantive and supportive voting communities.

Those who understand organisational best practices would hardly applaud a press release as an effective way of interaction between these alienated groupings. Unfortunately, this separateness (some say aloofness) reflects a recurring organisational defect – one that is fundamentally contradictory to the practice of teamanship, and a culture of mutual trust – pre-eminent attributes of effective leadership.

Yours faithfully,

E B John