By T.C. Phipps-Benjamin
On January 25, 2010 on the tiny twin island federation of St. Kitts and Nevis, a seemingly viable opposition party, the PAM, fielded eight candidates in a general election bid to replace the then three-term Labour administration.
Political pundits throughout the length and breadth of the federation forecasted a closely contested election. The stage had been seemingly set for a political showdown that had not been seen in years and the opposition vowed to launch a formidable showing at the polls.
One year later, as January 25, 2011 rolls around, not only is there no clear voice from an opposition on St. Kitts, but the known opposition leader continues to lead in an "on again off again" capacity. In an almost groundhog like fashion, he burrows up through the snow to determine if the political winter storm - partly of his own doing - will soon end. He belts out communique to the general public then retreats to his shell until the next opportunity surfaces. This political strategy is possibly the most convenient method of reminding the electorate that he is still the leader of the PAM yet the most destructive for the advancement of an opposition voice.
Even without being a political scientist, one can conclude that this cannot be a good democratic strategy for a number of reasons. For one, opposition is not solely some entity designed to muster votes on election day.
An effective opposition must be “seen to be” on the job articulating the cares and concerns of the ordinary man, just as government sits in office attending the issues of leadership during its tenure.
Opposition must be just as vocal about the plight of everyday Kittitians and Nevisians.
You name it, so long as it is a problem facing the electorate, the voice of the opposition should be ablaze.
Opposition should not be a lone soldier carrying a cross and a cane on Church Street one sunny Kittitian morning.
With all the ills that plague our twin island federation, the voice of the people ought to resonate through a vibrantly functional and relevant opposition.
A series of discussions have resonated about the Prime Minister's political future. One can easily give credit to the soldiers who use various forums to draw attention to errors in leadership of the current prime minister. In fact, it is widely speculated that within the current administration, there are those who would not fret at seeing the back of Denzil Douglas. However, even with an ousted Denzil Douglas, can the opposition be a viable alternative to our current government?
The bells and whistles that sing the “out with Denzil Douglas” tune are merely a cadre of plain old noise if nothing meaningful can be derived by the opposition once the campaign against Denzil Douglas ends.
It was just one year ago that a seemingly revamped opposition declared to the electorate its readiness to lead and govern the affairs of our pristine paradise. But no one was prepared for the dirty laundry that would hang in the streets of public opinion making the once formidable opposition seem defeated and haplessly irrelevant.
Ironically, despite the huge error in political judgment, Lindsay Grant gets to remain as the "hero" and leader of the opposition while those who petitioned among their own were tossed out and branded as “villains”. The calypsonian surely sang it best; "Only In St. Christopher".
Nearly one year since the controversial 4th term victory of the Denzil Douglas lead Labour administration, those who waited with bated breaths for their “turn” to wield power and enjoy the spoils of government still sit and wait for Denzil Douglas to continue his dictatorial style of leadership hopeful that he would somehow fall from the high seat of power. But the demise of Denzil Douglas is NOT an ousting of the Labour party now is it? So the question must be asked again of the opposition, is there now in St. Kitts eight potential candidates who can contest an election and assume the role of leadership in a bid to replace the current Labour lead administration?
The love of power has the ability to stifle good judgment and while we debate what most deem as a mountain of political blunders of our Prime Minister, it will be remiss of us not to ask just as tough questions of our opposition leader. After all, why replace one leopard with another?
