You can't be against something you are for

IN KEEPING with Senator Nazim Burke's muddled thinking, he now opposes, what he always wanted.

  Burke says he supports the idea of Grenada joining the Caribbean Court of Justice; and he also supports the setting up of an electoral commission.

  Being a man from Carriacou and Petite Martinique, one would also assume that he also wants those islands’ names to be on the passport.

   But Burke is advocating that people vote no in next year's referendum.

   But a no vote means to reject the idea of going to the CCJ; and promotes sticking with a one-man supervisor of election; and denies Carriacou and Petite Martinique having their names on the passport.

  Burke's argument is to vote no because the commission did not go far enough, and so next year's effort is a waste of time and money.

  But Burke's position won't save any money and won't save any time anyhow. Because it is going ahead in spite of his protestations.

   A clearer, smarter mind than Burke’s would have then said,  let's try to make it  less of a waste of time and money by voting on at least 12 items that make sense -- even though ideally you would have loved to have seen others.

 I could have followed Burke "no vote" position, if he had a fundamental and philosophic problem with any one idea on the ballot.

  Like Burke, I personally think that some of the measures have not gone far enough.

  I am one of the supporters of the idea for a fixed date for general elections.

  We may even want to consider some form of proportional representation.

  By the way -- I am opposed to term limits, though. I find that they are inherently anti-democratic. You cannot tell me I have the right to vote for who I want, and at the same time tell me I cannot vote for "John Doe" because I did so twice before.

  And as a practical matter anyhow – in small countries like ours, where the human resource is very limited – what is the developmental concept of disposing a good leader just because he has served two terms; and trade him/her for someone of lesser ability – just for the sake of it?

  And don't we have enough faith in the people's ability to think and choose? And faith, too, that in the process of election campaigning they can demand that politicians make a case on why a leader or leaders should not be returned – whether after one term or two or three?

  But beyond that, I agree with Naz on a few things -- such as fixed date for elections cet cet.

   But that is where I part with him. And that is where I side with his former leader Tillman Thomas.

  Not because you do not get all you want, you don't vote for some of the things you want.

  This Nazim Burke all or nothing strategy defies logic -- well on the face of it.

  But as politically un-astute as he may be most times, there is a method to Naz's madness.

  Nazim has become the leader of “no’’: No to anything that promises to inch the society forward.

  He says “no’’ to the structural adjustment programme – though as a cabinet minister he advocated those measures and even more (refer to cabinet papers); yet he does not have plausible solutions to the challenges we face.

  He basically says he would not support any moves to restructure the economy because the people, whom he claims caused the problem, want to fix it.

  Following the Nazim logic?

Let's assume you made a mess; don't try to clean it up even if people voted you to at least attempt it?

  Oh! The other point he makes – that this government is illegitimate, anyhow – so we cannot deal with it?

  Illegitimate? Is that the word? Serious? A government that won all the seats less than two years ago in a general election that was conducted under your control?

  But here is Naz's method to his madness; let everything go down the tube, in the hope that he can inherit the ashes.

  He did that to his own party – and now he is trying it on Grenada.

PS: Relevant link - Tillman Thomas speaks