Pam in disarray?

By G.A. Dwyer Astaphan

I say this despite the fact that they won two seats.

A well organized, financed and mobilized Party going up against incumbents seeking a fourth consecutive term in office is expected to do far better than winning just two (or 25% of the) seats.

And you didn’t have to be a rocket scientist to observe that there were a number of  effective arguments, tactics and strategies that PAM could have used, but didn’t. You also didn’t have to be a genius to recognize PAM’s many deficiencies.

They seemed not to be sufficiently organized, financed and mobilized.

All too often their judgment and actions were amateurish when they needed desperately to be professional. And they needed a better team of advisers to have any chance against the ‘It’s Working’ crew of advisers/consultants from England, and those from Canada, Barbados, and St.Kitts & Nevis.

As well, they were never able to neutralize the in-built advantage that incumbents, with the resources and auspices of Government at their disposal, enjoy.

And we saw Labour capitalize on that advantage ruthlessly in the elections. ZIZ became ‘TV Labour’ and ‘Radio Labour’, Warner Park became ‘Labour Park’, and so on.

Additionally, PAM was no match for Labour when it came to fund raising. And let me be brutally honest here: if you cannot raise enough money to rub hard against a Party seeking its fourth consecutive term in office, then you probably have not mobilized sufficient support to mount a serious challenge.

Because in the politics of today, whether it is America, England, Trinidad & Tobago, or St.Kitts & Nevis, it is the money that makes the mare go.

And if you cannot compete in that department, it means that you are weak.

To add insult to injury, Mr. Grant had to dig deeper and deeper into his own pockets to get things done. Evidently, he did not have the luxury of a Lex Consulting, or a friend who could pay for four charters, or another friend who would dutifully, and on cue at the last minute, flash his credit card and fly Beanie Man in after he had missed his commercial flight out of Jamaica.

Of course, PAM’s leader, and the Party, were also adversely affected by the notorious footage of him that was shown on You Tube

All of these things gave an insight, even beforehand, of the outcome of the elections.

And their cumulative effect has been to tatter, batter and shake up PAM’s leader and PAM.

To the extent, I daresay that regardless of the outcome of Mr. Grant’s court case against Honourable Glenn Phillip, the tall man ought to be favoured to keep the seat.

Because I think, with great respect, that politically Mr. Grant is seriously wounded, and in a by-election, all of the might and resources (not his personal resources, mind you) that are available to the man who fondly refers to himself as ‘Ten Man In One’ will be thrown into the battle.

And while all of this is happening, Dr. Douglas has been alert, committed as he is to finishing off Mr. Grant and PAM.

I am advised that he recently met with five of PAM’s candidates in the last elections, and that he has already offered them meaningful assistance.

Allegedly, these five had also written a letter internal to PAM, which had been causing some concern.

The news of their meeting with Dr. Douglas reached the PAM Executive, and at a meeting at Party Headquarters on the evening of Tuesday, 27th April, 2010, it is reported that the five gentlemen were questioned on the matter and that they did not deny having met with Dr. Douglas.

The meeting became very heated, and, I am told, it resulted in Messrs. Glenroy Blanchette, Roy Flemming, Bernard Welch, Junie Hodge and Louie Williams being ejected from the PAM Executive.

Meanwhile, the pressure continues in some quarters in that Party for Mr. Grant to step down and make way for another leader.

Does that not paint the picture of a political party in disarray?

I am not a supporter of PAM, but I am a firm believer in democracy, and it is my fervent hope that that Party will soon get its act together, attract new candidates, and work towards the next elections.

I am especially concerned because I want to see at least two vibrant political organizations appealing to the minds and best judgments and values of the people of this country.

I don’t want a one-party state; and I certainly don’t want to see the present Labour Party leader and Prime Minister, or any successor of his, get any more power.

He already has too much.

And so, while I encourage PAMites to take stock and rebuild their Party from their present position of weakness, I also likewise encourage Labourites, who have the luxury (although it may only be fleeting) to rebuild their Party from their present position of strength.

And I call upon these two Parties, as a collaborative effort between their respective elders and their younger up-and-coming leaders, to rebuild with men and women of democratic principles, values, vision, and love of nation.