Silly season again — elections

Some years ago, while Prime Minister Dr Eric Williams was still alive and kicking, Professor Selwyn Ryan publicly posed the rhetorical question: “Does Dr Williams take us for a nation of sheep?” In the context of today’s politics or what passes for politics anyway, the equivalent question might well be phrased thus: “Do our politicians in general and the political leaders in particular take us for goddam goats and unmitigated asses? What crimes,” I ask myself, “did we, collectively, commit in a possibly earlier incarnation to be saddled with that lot?”

Now I don’t like to tell tales out of school and I usually try not to draw conclusions beyond the ambit of the evidence but I couldn’t help noticing that in at least one political pair of politicians (conjoined at the hip?) there was what you might call a “well balanced team,” to wit, one was, as the saying goes, “more fool than knave and the other more knave than fool.” When I reflect on the level of puerility and the absurd antics that characterise the pseudo-political goings-on on the part of the political actors, I can only throw up my hands in despair and disgust and utter a feeble “battle cry,” “Good Lord, put a hand!” Now I’m inclined to go further than that and appeal to my dear Lord, “to put a foot as well.” But much as I would like to see the Lord’s footprints, “not on the sands of time,” but on the backsides of some high-profile “political animals,” as they like to be called, I’m more than a bit apprehensive about those feet ending in certain “celebrated political mouths,” given the prevalence of “foot-in-mouth” disease in some quarters. In any case, there’s always the risk of a foot being swallowed and “How it go look?” — to borrow Ronnie Mc Intosh’s hook line, if what sweet in goat mouth turns out to be sour at another aperture. However, to be more or less specific, I heard, or thought I heard someone, in authority, say that, “... crime is now confined to criminals and doh worry be happy, if you’re just an average citizen you’re only liable to be counted as collateral damage if you happen to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when criminals choose to strike — and that could be almost anywhere, including the sanctuary of your own home.

There’s that other fellow (that ball of political confusion?) who, in my view, pays little more than lip service to solving crime and not only opposes measures to deal, legistively, with burgeoning criminal activity but — and I may be wrong there — seems to be in his glee at any hint of an inability to deal effectively with the escalation of criminal activity. He’s never at a loss for some bogus reason for not offering any legislative assistance. It may not be stretching it to say that in any serious national crisis that affects the entire citizenry, “If you are strategically placed and can help or hinder, then if you’re not part of the solution then you’re part of the problem.” But try telling that to some of those seemingly “brain-dead” politicians and their retinue of “no-brainers.” It’s a great pity that politicians tend to loom large on the political landscape and we tend to lose sight of the real important things like the systems, succession models and the transitional political phases that the country is going through, however imperceptibly. I forgot to mention that one fellow who makes heavy weather and apparently gloats over the crime crisis actually achieved political office with the promise that he had the solution for the crime problem and, “those who do the crime will do the time.” We are yet to hear of an account of his stewardship in that respect. How ole talk beats performance any day of the week and twice on Sunday! But you’ve got to hand it to him, because he apparently can take positions that are diametrically opposed to the genuine interests of his traditional supporters and hoodwink them with some silly platitude that, “... half of me is yours and the other half is yours.” Take that in yuh rukungkutung!

To shift focus a bit. We need to examine our so-called political parties with regard to their constitutions — such as they are — their traditions, succession arrangements and their evolution. Dr Williams claimed that his greatest achievement was not only to establish his party but maintain its existence by employing the old colonial “divide and rule” technique, in which the UNC leader Basdeo Panday was a knowing and useful pawn in Williams’ political chess game. That’s a story by itself and Panday should be minded to develop it in his memoirs. It goes without saying that both the PNM and the UNC are personality based parties. It may surprise some people to learn that over two decades after his death the Doc still has a political constituency that’s beholden to him and helps the party win elections. I’m not at all persuaded that Dr Williams cared dearly about “the changing of the guard,” in the event of his death or incapacitation — his bogus resignation notwithstanding. He was more concerned with looking over his shoulder, after his break with Arthur Robinson whom he scathingly referred to as, “the traitor deputy.” Thenceforth, there was to be no perceived heir apparent. The local election silly season would not be complete without an eye-catching Basdeo Panday gimmick, hence a quickie constitution change to accommodate a selected deputy or more than one selected deputies. Who will be handed “the poisoned chalice?” Will this political farce be passed off as “succession planning?” I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see. Given Panday’s penchant for the unorthodox, it wouldn’t surprise me if there’s no limit to the number of deputies selected by the puppet master. For maximum leaders, deputies are not essential — ask Ramesh Maharaj — and today’s blue-eyed boy may one day discover that what maximum leaders require are good, subservient handymen who appreciate that “all can’t be captain, some must be crew.” Ask John Humphrey.