Being an ambassador is one of the greatest honors that can be bestowed on any individual. For me, it was an undeniable privilege to be selected to attend the fourth Commonwealth Youth Parliament in London this past September. Credit must be given to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for trying to encompass a holistic program however, as with all things, improvements can be made. It was interesting to interact with delegates from Commonwealth member states. Hearing their tales opened my eyes to the stark political reality facing nations around the globe. To my dismay, in some member states youth parliaments had either not been establish or are taken for granted. In speaking to the CPA Secretary General Dr William Shija, he made it a point to commend the St Lucia Youth Parliament for its progress and foresight and conveyed his hopes for its betterment. I had not given enough credence to the organizers of my domestic youth parliament for the extensive training and mentoring in parliamentary decorum and public speaking preceding our annual chamber debates. As such, it was my goal upon my return to St Lucia to publicly acknowledge their efforts through a newspaper article.
In my naivety I had expected all the member countries to be on equal footing but sadly I was disappointed. Some of my
334 | The Parliamentarian | 2011: Issue Four
colleagues had no grasp of parliamentary procedures nor were some equipped to speak publicly far less debate in a parliamentary setting. Additionally, it was quite disconcerting to witness in the midst of a quick paced debate that some delegates had to resort to writing out their responses and reading it as if we were in a school exercise. Had those delegates been disadvantage by having English as their second language then I would not have been so taken aback. Surprisingly, it was English-speaking delegates who were guilty of such. Though we were all given strict instructions before our arrival in London that CYP was “not a reading exercise,” it appeared that organizers who were present did nothing to ensure this criteria was met. On the brighter side, the
exercises leading up to the House of Lords debate served as an icebreaker and ignited a fruitful debate on policy, bills and motions. The guest speakers and moderators gave a unique insight and shared their vast knowledge with us. As the week came to a close, our fictional country, Commonwealthland, had a functional parliament, economic policies and environmental objectives. CYPs were thrown for a loop
when, on Friday at the House of Lords debate, Commonwealth Diaspora Youth Parliamentarians were introduced in the mix. They were oblivious to the progress
Ms Aisha Ally
CYPs had made in the days preceding the debate and raised justifiable concerns during their presentations which were, unfortunately, already addressed by the CYPs in previous sessions and to a degree, it defeated the purpose of the House of Lords debate. The Diaspora
parliamentarians were under the impression the debate had to do with Commonwealth member states as opposed to an imaginary country. The ultimate conclusion of the debate on the motion “To eradicate carbon emissions [in Commonwealthland] by 100% by 2050” was that the opposition, government and independent CYPs voted in favor of the proposal because it was the least extreme, sorry to say, of the arguments presented. The opposition proposed reducing carbon emissions by 100% by 2040 while an independent delegate completely opposed the motion because “the larger countries caused greenhouse gas emissions