Full of himself?

By G.A.Dwyer Astaphan

You see, there are some persons who say that Mr. Brantley is “ambitious” and that he “needs to be put in his place”.
 
I thought that the Minister ran somewhat offside, however, when he went on about Mr. Brantley being “full of himself”.

And in making his case, the Minister claimed that Mr. Brantley had used the word “I” one hundred and three (or was it one hundred and thirty?) times in his reply to the Budget Address.

Well, hold on a minute here. If Mr. Brantley is indeed “full of himself” (and I’m not saying that he is), how would you rate a gentleman who says “I am de minister of everything”, “I am de bigger boss” and “I man is ten man in one”?

Is there any chance that the Minister, as he sat and counted the 100 plus “I”s coming from the mouth of Mr. Brantley, might have been thinking: “Who tell he dat he could tek all me “I” dem?”

Look, whether you support Mr. Brantley or not, his presence adds thoughtfulness, assertiveness, energy, style and interest to Parliament. And that’s good.

Also, in terms of content, style, and language craftsmanship, his contributions rank highly among those with whom I have served in my fourteen years plus as an MP.

And whether or not I agree with what he says, I respect his right to express himself, and I like the way he calls it as he sees it.

More of us should be like that.

It’s a shame that so many of us in positions high, medium and low, have, for one reason or another, zipped up our lips, plugged our ears, covered our eyes, and surrendered our dignity and our intellectual integrity.

Among them are persons, some educated to university level, who, while they declare their commitment to keeping Labour strong, and in power, are in fact servants in the cause of keeping one man strong, and in power. And they are fooling a lot of people with it. Maybe they are even fooling themselves.

In carrying out their mandate, they try to make people think that the man and the Party are one and the same. And, to coin a phrase, “It’s Working!” He is the Party, and he is the most powerful leader the Party and the country have ever had, including Robert Bradshaw.

Nowhere near the man or leader that Sir Robert was, mind you, but more powerful. Frightening.

And these intellectual and ethical hostages have little interest in standing up, questioning, and speaking truth to power as true supporters of the cause, and protectors of the integrity, of the Labour Movement. Instead, they cow tow to the man, and act as his attack dogs.

Here are some of the things they will say to you:
1.Anyone who suggests to the prime minister that thought needs to be given to a succession plan is out of order. He will step down only if and when he wants. It is his decision to make (The Party is nothing, the man is everything).
2.The prime minister is not the first among equals. He can’t be the equal of people whom he can hire and fire. He can overrule the entire Cabinet as he pleases. He, and he alone, is the boss and the decision maker (Yet when you blame him for anything, you are accused of having something personal against him).
3.The fact that most of the other members of Cabinet are also elected means nothing. They effectively have no say (People’s votes are essentially worthless).
4.This thing isn’t much about democracy at that level, and it shouldn’t be. It’s about the prime minister. If anything goes wrong, it is he who gets blamed and if anything goes right it is he who must get the credit. (But he accepts no blame, remember. Not even blame for One Man, far less for Ten Man in One).
5.All of the successes of the Government over the past fifteen years are the successes of the prime minister (One man show).
6.He is the only person fit to lead Labour and the country now; only he could have led the Party to an election victory, and none of the present, more experienced members of Government is worthy of leadership (The truth is, bad decisions necessitated attractive election offers. But if the Government had been doing what a Labour Government is expected to do every day, every week, every month, every year, it would have won 7 or 8 seats, and what turned out to be tight wins would have been large. And Labour would not have gone from 8 seats in 2000, to 7 in 2004, to 6, and maybe, 5 seats in 2010. So it’s clinical, cynical, ruthless desperation and a load of money, coupled with an unprecedentedly weak and unconvincing PAM, that did it. Not political genius. That’s the hard politics of it. And in time, we shall see how much pain, if any, that this approach has caused).
7.Whatever he owns is his business because there is no law that forces him to account for, or to report on, what he has. (Well, if it is he who has all of the power, then it must be he who has stopped the Integrity in Public Life, the Freedom of Information and other governance related laws from being passed. So why has he done that? And it needs to be said that the absence of law should not prevent people from doing what is right).
8.He does not have to report on Lex Consulting to anyone in the Labour Party or to anyone else, because there is no law that makes him do so. And that’s not an issue.(If that is the case, then the Labour Party may have truly surrendered its conscience, its backbone and its glorious tradition to the power and hubris of one man. A party that will not operate transparently and democratically will not govern a country transparently and democratically).
9.He has in no way taken liberties with the Constitution of this country. He can make whatever changes he wishes to reports of the Constituency Boundaries Commission. It was perfectly okay for him to carry the country to the edge, one day before the expiry date for Parliament and run the government, business as usual. And it was perfectly in order for him to leave the country after the election when he was the only minister appointed. (Really?)
10.There is no fiscal/financial crisis in the country. There is large debt, but it is being serviced. This debt is reflected entirely in the country’s infrastructure and social development which is superior to that of any other OECS country. There has been no fiscal imprudence or indiscretion whatsoever. No patronage. And if there was a crowding out of funds, then there would not be so much social development in the country (I wonder what the Taiwanese Government would have to say about Warner Park, the Silver Jubilee Stadium and the many other facilities which have been built essentially  as a result of its generosity, not out of St.Kitts & Nevis taxpayers’ pockets. And what would the experts say about our fiscal situation?)
11.The PM can take no responsibility for the crime situation, and it is not because of lack of proper facilities and equipment that the police are under-performing. It is because of the lack of commitment and the ‘wutlessness’ among so many them, and because of poor parenting. (He can singlehandedly choose the Police Commissioner. But nothing that the police do or don’t do is his fault. What would the people of the USA, the UK, Canada, Barbados or Jamaica say if their leaders were to blame the police and take no blame for the high occurrence of violent crime? Government does not involve responsibility by selection. Rather, it involves responsibility by definition. There is no choice in the matter. And if one man has all of the power, then it follows that he can his fair share of the responsibility).
12.Some of these bright university graduates told me that the only real issue for the country is that  Labour stays in power, that the present leader holds on until he names a suitable replacement who will not come from among the more experienced colleagues of the leader, because none of them is worthy of the leadership. “No turn for them! The Boss will bypass them and move to Nigel, or to somebody fresh”.

How much more intellectual dishonesty and prostitution will some of us engage in? How much more disrespect, degradation and insult will people allow to be heaped upon themselves?

How many more excuses will seemingly sensible people make in the name of a ‘cause’ that manipulates and mocks them, and diminishes the great traditions and the legacy of the Labour Movement of Manchester, Sebastian, Challenger, Solomon, Nathan, Halbert, Seaton, John, France, Bradshaw, Southwell, Moore, Bryant and Payne, and others?