North Side Independent MLA boycotted Monday’s Throne Speech and Budget Address because, ““I decided not to take part in the process because this is yet another example of the Premier’s continued circumvention of due process by ignoring the provisions of the PMFL and the FFR, which he signed with the FCO.

“The UDP has the majority votes in Parliament and it would be futile to object to the proceedings this afternoon, when all eight UDP members would simply follow in lockstep to anything the Premier proposed.”

Miller sent out his press release giving his reasons for his boycott just before the Throne Speech was to be given by Acting Governor Hon. Franz Manderson. It is not the first time the North Side MLA has done this and he began his press release with;

“It is rather curious that the Premier, having cancelled several previously announced dates and times for convening the LA to present the budget, today makes the choice to present the budget without final FCO approval.”

So has his boycott achieved anything except some amount of publicity?

It has been said, “Most people associate the word ‘boycott’ with ’60s radicals, but boycotting is a well-respected, effective and legal means of nonviolent protest, as well as a vehicle of change.”

This fact is now more widely known and accepted than ever before in history.

The problem I have with this boycott is it was done almost on “the spur of the moment”.

On the www.fightpp.org site it says, “A boycott will generally fail when it has unfocused leadership, employs inconsistent pressure, has insufficient organization and planning, makes unreasonable demands, or when those who support the cause behind the boycott will not participate.”

Activists need to think twice before calling for a boycott. “A boycott should not be utilized on a whim,” said Douglas R. Scott, Jr., who as president of Life Decisions International (LDI) has managed a boycott of Planned Parenthood’s corporate supporters for nearly two decades. “It should also not be the tool of first resort. A boycott needs to be well-thought-out.”

Miller’s boycott didn’t change anything. The Premier gave us his reasons for proceeding even though it was through his own failures as Minister of Finance that brought the current situation crashing down upon his head. Although he explained that by saying the FCO kept “moving the goalposts.” Having not been privy to all the comings and goings between London and the premier I cannot comment.

Heather Mallick, a columnist who writes for “The Star” gave a definition of boycotting under the headline: “The fine if largely futile art of boycotting”.

She said, “Boycotting is what I do. It’s the perfect form of passive aggression for those of us too lazy to write letters of complaint and too tightly wound to do what we really want to do, which is scream. Complaining takes organization, patience and a level of faith in the rationality of corporations. Who has the time?”

So I have to ask my question again, “has his [Miller] boycott achieved anything?”