Malicious attempt to further complicate already volatile circumstances

Dear Editor,
In recent weeks, there has been a great deal of thought, emphasis and consideration placed on the concept of shared governance. While the idea of shared governance is innovative and could possibly put an end to various disputes faced by our small nation; the execution and timing of this push can only be seen as a malicious attempt to further complicate the already volatile circumstances we face right now.
I ask, what of the people who left their homes on election day to make their voices heard and to choose their Government? These people have experienced life under both of the political parties who have ruled over the last 28 and were prepared to select who would lead them during the next 5. Are there opinions to be ignored? To accept any other result than has been chosen by them is tantamount to telling them that their voices do not matter. They had no idea that shared governance was even an option, I plead that they are not hoodwinked by the people who are supposed to be representing their interests.
Additionally, to accept shared governance now would also be an abominable misuse of resources. Millions of dollars were spent in the lead-up and implementation of this grand election. I do not believe that these millions were taken out of the pockets of those who are currently petitioning for the scrapping of the election results and creation of an interim Government. On the topic of interim Government, how is this shared Government to be effected?
Who is to delegate Ministries and positions? How are these to be delegated? I sincerely hope that the persons petitioning for shared governance do not intend to do this by using the results of the election. If they did indeed care about the results of the election, they would not have suggested this alternative which will effectively render the votes of the people moot.
Lastly, the convenience of this process is far too blatant for one to possibly believe that it is with benevolent intentions. Why is shared governance only discussed when there is a major dispute as to the victor of the election? I am not a soothsayer and I do not claim to be, but I strongly believe that if there was no controversy over the election results, the idea of shared governance would remain at the back of people’s minds instead of in the spotlight as it is currently.
As I mentioned previously, the concept of shared governance is not a bad one, but in this particular instance, it only serves the purpose of being a scapegoat tactic. The people have spoken and must be heard. Not in the medium decided upon by those with questionable intentions, but rather in the medium the people intended when they voted.

Yours sincerely,
Oliver Thomas