We have lost our way. . . If?

By Carol Phillip-Tudor

What is now tolerable or civic or conscientious have, in St. Kitts-Nevis, been distorted.  Informally, it would appear that the “Soul” of the nation has been stolen and replaced with outrageous “Political Imps”.  These imps accept nothing, save the absolute and consummate devotion of supporters, to their political party of choice.
 
Where it was once singularly accepted by Kittitians and Nevisians that St. Kitts and Nevis is the best country on the planet that belief has soon vanished; now commandeered by the new and entrenched ideology: “St. Kitts and Nevis is the best country in the world if . . .”

In 2010, citizens cower in the skimpy safety of their homes. Even in their homes, not even there is skimpy safety assured. Yet, answers to questions, which would indicate that the country is mired in Crime, Debts, Unemployment., et al and with citizens chronically depressed by the daily criminal activities, is made  better by the utility of the word “if”. An all around agreement can be reached indicating that the country is indeed in a crime-riddled mess. Disagreement arises when duty to or, at the minimum, responsibility for the situation is required. Individuals, who may have barely just finished complaining about how troubled, he or she is by the situation will immediately proclaim that all is well if the matter of political allegiances raise an ugly head.
If a paradigm is used, dividing the population of St. Kitts/Nevis into 50% St. Kitts/Nevis Labour Party Supporters (SKNLP) and 50% People’s Action Movement supporters (PAM), one will find that the same 100% of citizens who have expressed frustration with the disunity and political divisiveness will converge instantaneously on their chosen political side like robots if challenged.

Citizens who had only just answered “no” to the question of whether they feel safe in their own country will answer “yes” if the question is changed to ask if under the Labour Government  if they feel safe in their own country? This contradiction is made possible by politicians who themselves are the sole beneficiaries of this disunion.

Supporters of political Parties have embraced the perfidious belief that on their chosen political side only one man can save them their downfall. With any luck, perhaps that is not taken to mean that they wish their political leaders to acquire, with this Christ-like obligation, Back pains, Hernias or that malady that Charlie Breadfruit had called ‘bomongcu’.

Minister G. A Dwyer Astaphan once called on Prime Minister, the Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas to resign as prime minister of the federation of St. Kitts-Nevis. Mr. Astaphan was vilified by most supporters of SKNLP and regarded as ‘conscionable’ by most supporters of PAM. Mr. Washington Archibald, once revered and esteemed also vociferously called for the resignation of the prime minister. Again, he was regarded as ‘conscionable’ by most PAM supporters and maligned by most Labour Supporters. That is, until Mr. Archibald also asked for the resignation of the Leader of the PAM, Mr. Lindsay F.P Grant and instantaneously he became a turncoat and confused old man.

Mr. Glenroy Blanchette, former candidate of the PAM, had for years called for the resignation of Dr. the Hon. Denzil L. Douglas as prime minister of the federation.  Then, in a perceived misstep, he belatedly called for the resignation of Mr. Lindsay F.P Grant. Mr. Blanchette was hounded from his job as has Mr. Astaphan and Mr. Washington Archibald before him; all of whom have made significant contributions to this country. What country? Forget country! Their sin is in turning away from an unrelenting veneration of their political leaders. Whether these complainants’ method of approach is met with agreement or whether their chosen ways of asking for their leaders to show a higher degree of integrity to this country is unimportant.

Unfortunately for these alleged dissenters, their futures are adjudicated over and lay in the balance of 50% SKNLP and 50% PAM supporters in their hasty political falling in line.

What these gentlemen have had to say is unimportant. Their banishment seems practical and explain- away-able to the naked eyes and commonsense that is what is important. The conniving practice of ridding dissenting voices of platform is also important.

Naturally, the 50%/50% regulation must be adhered to at all cost. To refuse participate in the 50%/50% preconditions is liable to punishment often by we who say we seek effective changes and an improved country. Can new paths be forged when none is permitted, without backlash and severed income, to move to the political left or to the political right without running afoul of one 50% grouping or another?

The Prime Minister, the Hon. Dr. Denzil L. Douglas, has no authority when he speaks sorrowfully about crime. His hypocrisy is perceptible through his utterances of incitement and revolution. His follow-up failure on crime fighting should have surprised no one. Listen to Mr. Lindsay F.P Grant mince his way through an interview, either trying to defend or censure St. Kitts and Nevis’ officials, who were allegedly caught on tape battering votes to Japan for frivolous exchanges, and see why it is unwise to be caught on tape ignominiously.

The word “dissident” in reference to the so-called “Infamous Five” should never have slipped the lips of the beloved Rt. Hon. Dr. Kennedy Alphonse Simmonds, first Prime Minister of the Federation; if or unless it was his express wish to reference rats and mongooses roaming  in the rotting canefields.

 The word “if” can be used responsibly. “IF” leaders do not lead then we must remove them from positions of leadership. “If not”, as we sojourn this treacherous backwoods of 50%/50% democracy, blind political allegiances will become our hang rope and ruin.