The ascension
of Nazim Burke as leader of the National Democratic Congress has been noted –
and on a personal level you want to wish every man well in the context of
everything.
In politics, especially in
this small society as ours, we cannot get so mean spirited, that we cannot wish
someone well, even while fundamentally being opposed to where they stand.
Whether he can turn around the fortunes of the NDC, in the short and medium
term, is questionable.
That said, you never take anything in politics for granted – and
whether he succeeds depends as much on what he does, as what others in the
political spheres do, and what are the extenuating circumstances outside of the disparate forces.
Eighty
percent of success in politics, is created by a mixture of circumstances and luck.
The other 20 percent is all you have to effectively create your own space.
It is
not something I was taught in any political science class; but it's a position I have come to from looking at a lot of the stuff
up close and personal around the Caribbean.
The biggest problem Burke
faces as leader, is not the indictment that can be read against him for his
calculated inaction when the party was being torn apart – an effective
opportune fielder waiting in the slips to take the catch without being part of
the strategic team that worked the batsman out.
It is also not so much that by
default he comes across as cold and calculating, unfeeling and sometimes
downright selfish. His sponsors might even say these are wrong
characterizations. But that impression built over a long time, will take a
little while to be erased.
While his low ratings in
national leadership polling in recent years, is a challenge – frankly,
strategically it is not insurmountable.
His sojourn as Minister of
Finance is a blot on his heavily promoted ability. He not only seemed clueless
sometimes in tough times; at time, even callous by his “fiddling while Rome
burnt.” A man, who was never from the “I feel your pain” school.
Every time Tillman touted
him the best ever, you could virtually hear the laugh around Grenada growing
louder – but it was a painful laugh from a not-to-amused audience watching a
tragi-comedy.
But there are creative ways to
turn around those negatives in politics.
A lot of those things
could be taken care off through time, luck, circumstances – and a learning
curve that allows you to handle efficiently that 20% of “making your own
space.”
But even if he does the 20%
well, there are no guarantees. It is largely dependent on how the other side
does its 20%.
But I think Naz’s biggest problem going forward will be his “political character.”
His future is too much a
victim of his past; a circumstance that has made him a prisoner to caution.
We saw huge doses of it when he
was the Minister of Finance.
For Naz to make his name he has
to be bold; and he has to fear failure less.
It was his fear of failure that
made him a failed Finance Minister.
Ego and ambition can be good
things if they are managed well; but it can be destructive if one’s core
foundation is not rooted in any solid political or sociological philosophy.
You have to be practical and
pragmatic yes, but those actions must be informed by something deeper.
And that’s the deficit
that haunts Burke as he goes forward. It is not so much that he is raw meat; he
is just a politician with uncooked principles; the brightest of the wishy-washy
variety.
There is a lot for work to
do when the left and the right; the working class and the business class – all
either simply just don’t like you; fear you or don’t think you’re that hot.
Jenny Rapier and the
Women’s Arm of the party that piloted him to the leadership are good for
starters. But who’s made up of the main course?
It’s hard to be a
successful leader when you have no natural constituents.
Tricks Simmons, Glen Noel and
Franka Bernadine will hang, because their political options are limited. But
they are certainly not singing hallelujah.
NDC’s leadership deficit is also
Grenada’s leadership deficit. And unless we as a nation figure it going
forward, the cancer will spread to debilitating effect.
To
understand the leadership default of the society is to appreciate what option
to Burke there was. It was sure not an improvement in boldness or daring; nor
in innovation or vision.
The options are all
leaders who will tinker at the edges, without shaking the center.
And in this current world
economic environment that marginalizes small nations as ours, there needs to be
something more if real people’s lives are to be affected.
Naz is a brighter version of Tillman; and a more calculating version of Franka.
But they all see their job as a manager of the status quo,; tinkering at the edges, playing it safe and holding down their positions.
That won’t move the country.
That won’t change the fortunes of people in Munich, where I am from, or in
Marquis, where Glen Noel is from – or any such other villages.
For all his flaws, Keith
Mitchell’s biggest strength is that he is willing to take a gamble; to try to
go places the system dares him not to.
The people who aspire to replace
him – not just in the opposition – but the current players around him won’t
make a revolution. Their submission is to order; as if believing that order is
necessarily the good opposite to chaos. Except that when fear drives you to
order, what you get is stagnation.
Both
parties are awashed with children of that other ‘revolution’ – celebrating 35
years this year. Their problem is that they have grown into fine middle aged
men and women, who see no value is challenging the status quo – but just
managing it well.
Maybe we have to wait on a new
generation of leaders, whose name we don’t know yet.
The successor to Mitchell is
maybe a kid in a university somewhere, who is yet a member of either party.
To understand the problem
the likes of Naz faces, is to study John W Gardner, a former US Marine and
Health and Education Secretary under 19060s American President Lyndon Johnson.
He once wrote:
"All too often, on the long road up, young leaders become 'servants of
what is rather than shapers of what might be'. In the long process of learning
how the system works, they are rewarded for playing within the intricate
structure of existing rules.
"By the time they reach the top, they are very likely to be trained prisoners of the structure. This is not all bad; every vital system reaffirms itself. But no system can stay vital for long unless some of its leaders remain sufficiently independent to help it to change and grow."
"By the time they reach the top, they are very likely to be trained prisoners of the structure. This is not all bad; every vital system reaffirms itself. But no system can stay vital for long unless some of its leaders remain sufficiently independent to help it to change and grow."
Naz is a trained prisoner of the
structure; to the point that his biggest strength is his weakness.
In his
yearning for leadership, he has become too frightened of his past. It is a fear that threatens to cripple his future.
" The biggest problem Burke faces as leader, is not the indictment that can be read against him for his calculated inaction when the party was being torn apart – an effective opportune fielder waiting in the slips to take the catch without being part of the strategic team that worked the batsman out".
ReplyDeleteHamlet that metaphor does not fit. Cricket is a team sport - you know that the slip fielders as well as other fielders are strategically place there in an effort to get the batsman out.
Torbo!!!
I agree with your analysis of Naz. As someone watching from the outside, his forward movement seems to be crippled by determinism. He indeed seems to be a prisoner to his past, which he seems not able to shake off. Of course, this analogy is not the problem, it is seemingly unshakable tie to his past.
ReplyDelete