The Editor, Sir:

Roderick Rainford's reasons for accepting the value of the Vale Royal summitry (Letter of the Day, June 14) lead to the belief that there is a Rump Parliament at Gordon House. This is hardly what Mr Rainford intended by his elegantly worded letter.

The Rump Parliament was the name of the English Parliament after Colonel Pride on December 6, 1648, had purged the Long Parliament.

Left over Parliament

'Rump' normally means the hind end of an animal; its use meaning 'remnant' was first recorded in the above context.

Since 1649, the term 'rump parliament' has been used to refer to any parliament left over from the actual legitimate parliament.

The other extract from Wikipedia provides an interesting comparison between Jamaica today and England, when that country was a Republican Commonwealth led by Oliver Cromwell and Parliament was an inconvenience that had to be avoided. (Co-incidentally, it was during that period that England captured Jamaica).

Cromwell's actions

Cromwell had two key objectives as lord protector.

The first was "healing and settling" the nation after the chaos of the civil wars and the regicide. To Cromwell, the form this healing took was unimportant.

Forms of government were to him "but ... dross and dung in comparison of Christ". More important was preservation of the traditional social order".

Cromwell's actions to circumvent an inconvenient Parliament were unacceptable.

Likewise, the Vale Royal talks are unacceptable for the grave issues in governance when they take place between specially selected leaders in government and opposition, in secret, outside of Parliament, and other MPs are excluded.

One decision was filtered to the public causing alarm and uninformed debate in the country.

Despite a stigma that the natural tendency in Parliament [is] to engage in political one-upmanship, this does not justify circumventing the legitimate Parliament for governmental matters - not even where the form of government is "but ... dross and dung".

It is preferable for Parliament to reform itself to remain an enduring symbol of constitutional democracy.

Mr Rainford says the funda-mental purpose of the Vale Royal talks is the stark reality that the leaders who meet at Vale Royal reflect the two major organised and evenly balanced political blocs in the country which have survived repeated third party attempts to invade their space, and which must find accommodation with each other.

Hapless situation

Sadly, this recognises a hapless situation where members of parliament are holding talks for political parties, in which they themselves are members, to find accommodation with each other.

This is like playing at "ring-a-ring o' roses, a pocket full of posies", where in the end we all fall down - and the seat of government becomes a rump parliament.

Bipartisan talks may take place anywhere for party or governmental purposes, but each must be held separately, never together.

Dismantling garrisons is essentially a party matter where the public glare in Parliament is inconvenient for some and must, therefore, be avoided.

There is no indication that garrisons are on the agenda at Vale Royal for the parties to find accommodation with each other to destroy the monster that impedes governance.

I am, etc.,

FRANK PHIPPS

phipps@infochan.com

Via Go-Jamaica