Opposing for opposing sake

The following distinction has sometimes been suggested, between a statesman and a politician: “A politician thinks primarily of the next election and a statesman’s thinking is primarily concerned with the next generation or, in other words, the overriding interests of his/her country.” One could add a third category: The two-bit political opportunist who may be so preoccupied with his own personal or political survival that, beyond “covering his ass,” as the Americans say, everything else pales into insignificance and must necessarily take a back-seat.

Now, at the risk of seeming more “learned” than I actually am, I can’t help noting that it’s probably only in the protracted shadow of historical perspective that we can possibly discern which, if any, of our politicians (including Prime Ministers) fall within what, if any, of afore-mentioned categories. Just how do our politicians actually regard us? Please ask yourself this question. Given their demonstrably “donkey cart” political styles, it’s not surprising, as one singer sang: “Dem boys with their hidden agendas and their mind-benders will always do their do.” Another group of singers sang how, “Dey take we for fools wid dey kissin babies and dey knocking at we door (at election time) and dey promisin and dey promisin and dey forgettin what dey promisin.” As far as the political leaders and misleaders are concerned it’s a question of, “Doh fret yuh fat, as soon as the election bell rings, every zandolee go find its hole — no matter what frog wears which party symbol.”

As a matter of fact, we electoral tadpoles should take a good look at the nameless, faceless frogs presented with great fanfare by the “Frog-in-Chief” since we’ll only be having the dubious pleasure of seeing them twice — the first and the last time. Do we, their little “froglets” deserve any greater courtesy? It didn’t even sound funny when, at some point in the last local election, a number of persons (pardon me, froglets) had voted for hours, using the wrong ballot papers, before the mistake was discovered. Reminds me of the story of the thief who broke into the Kremlin and stole the results of forthcoming elections. Jamaican politician Alexander Bustamante used to be quite blunt and to the point, when he would tell his supporters, “If I tell you to vote for a dog, vote for that dog!” Dr Eric Williams is supposed to have quipped that if he put a crapaud (frog) in a balisier tie, the PNM supporters would vote for it. Whether Williams said this or not, it was certainly consistent with some of his behaviour patterns. However, few might remember that a number of constituencies defied the Doc and insisted on having candidates of their choice which the Doc had heretofore rejected. A vengeful Williams drew last blood as he publicly, without substantiation, publicly deemed them “millstones” and banished them to the “back benches.” In that regard, the election could be regarded as a “roll call” of tadpoles to indicate the choice of “Frog-in-Chief” and his retinue of “toadies.”

Now, I’m aware that there has been quite a lot of hot air about confusion between the Westminster model as it obtains in England and the Westminster muddle that obtains locally. I do not wish to elaborate on this, here and now. But it strikes me as a bit odd that beyond the point of “scoring points and settling scores,” our political leaders and misleaders cannot perceive a difference between the smaller issues of legitimate partisan differences and the larger national issues that transcend local politics. And so for them, every issue is one that can be exploited as a political football for dubious partisan and personal advantage, even to the detriment of the country as a whole or their support base in particular. Opposing for opposing sake is the order of the day. And whereas both major parties and leaders (if we can still say so) have been to a greater or less extent guilty, Mr Basdeo Panday has taken this absurdity to “higher heights” and could be remembered as the self-destructive “high priest” of such patent absurdity, usually justified by him and his apologists with some smart-ass excuse and half-arsed reasoning.

Which leads me to the crucial and long-festering issue of the “restructuring of the local sugar industry.” It had been used as a partisan political football, subjected to much political tomfoolery. It was also being used as a catalyst (hopefully?) to arouse ethnic tensions and create chaos and confusion in order to create a smokescreen to disguise the naked truth that the UNC leadership, that has ridden on the backs of the sugar workers to fame and fortune, had abandoned them in their hour of dire need, with the only “creative suggestion” from the UNC leader that they should “take to the streets” and/or block traffic in Port-of-Spain in some innovative “Blockorama” misadventure. Yuh think it easy wid politicians who’ve run out of steam, time and constructive ideas! Everyone, familiar with the problem, seems to agree that the sugar industry issue is a national one, time has been running out for a long time, external circumstances would determine its demise or restructuring and it was incumbent on all concerned to ensure a relatively “soft landing,” preferable to a “sudden crash.” The parliamentary Opposition tried to raise the issue as a matter of grave national importance. Unbelievably, the Speaker did not agree. They huffed and puffed and stormed out of the parliament. PM Patrick Manning assured Mr Panday that they could have the debate. Panday backed out of the “Caroni debate” that he had so vociferously sought with the famous words, “Yuh think we born yesterday, eh!” That speaks for itself and says volumes!