Another chapter of my manifesto of rebellion

I spent the last week in Grenada, observing first hand some of the political developments – and been too busy going all over the place to put pen to paper until now.

And since Glen Noel has publicly asked me to comment on the rally – let me start there. 

Whether it was a success or not frankly depends on what were the expectations going in. 

I won’t even get into the arguments about numbers. That 2,800 figure is absolutely ridiculous. It was not even half of that.

Whatever the figure was – the New National Party rally at Gouyave on that same day had roughly about three times that size – which will put it at nearly 9,000 – which of course will be equally ridiculous. 

But to more substantive matters – and it is a question I have not received a serious answer from anyone for a long time. 

Is this confidence rally the beginning of a path to any victory? 

Can a divided NDC win a seat – let alone an election? 

Now if Glen Noel and Nazim Burke believe so, e-mail me the information on that grass they are smoking. I need some of it. 

Sunday’s meeting was simply an ego trip into the political wonderland. 

First of all the organizers successfully hoodwinked enough people to make-believe this is some innocent, non-partisan meeting.

It was a decidedly poisonous and disingenuous political rally of a faction of the NDC – using state officials to co-oridnate and run the operation because the Prime Minister could not count on the defacto party machinery.

And I have not heard any of these holier-than-thou acolytes of good governance lift a voice against what was a wanton abuse of the power of the state for a narrow political purpose. 

The declaration that the meeting did not cost the state a thing, is so blatantly not true – that Ray Charles could see through that.

So what's with the invoices generated for various services that have been billed to the state? How will these be settled? 

And what about the GIS van that went around advertising the meeting? 

And even if we conveniently accept the statement that the meeting did not cost the state a thing, it leads to even more troubling questions. 

Those troubling questions were properly captured by an unsolicited e-mail a friend of mines from overseas sent me this past week – and I will borrow the comment as if they are mine. 

She wrote:

Then there is the rally. The man said he is having a rally in his capacity as PM. It is a thanksgiving rally. Well since when can we use state funds to have a rally to promote a PM?  Especially when the entire charade was loaded with party rhetoric; people with their NDC T-Shirts shouting .No Tilly,  No NDC. A senator on the podium talking about (Michael) Church is not an NDC he is an NNP. Now does that sound like a government rally to you? 

But the most crucial thing is, if the rally was deemed a government rally and the government did NOT foot the bill then that's worst. 

How could you have private individuals funding state functions?  Isn't that the beginning of corruption? 

 What will the government subsequently owe these individuals? How influential would they be in the policy and other decisions of the state?  Like Mr Transparency really doesn't understand what good governance means. Worst yet we have so-called journalists that is incapable of analyzing the current situation. 

Those were fair comments and insights. 

The other aspect of Sunday that troubled me was the appearance of two leaders of the NGO community apparently representing their organizations at this venomous political event.

It is their right if they want to participate in their individual capacities – but to do so on behalf of their organizations was a terrible lack of judgment. 

I admire and appreciate the work the two women have done in the community, and I think their hearts (no pun intended) are in the right places. 

However, I would think they’d want to look back on this episode and wish it did not happen.

The development effectively undermined their great work; not enhanced it. (PS: I love them still). 

The other issue making the rounds in Grenada this past week was the reported transfer of $150,000 US to the account of a top government official. 

Now in the face of a lack of regulation on campaign financing, there is nothing inherently wrong with donations – every politician and party badly need them. 

And there has been no outright denial from the Prime Minister nor the Minister of Information about the “donations.”  The only denials have been it was not from Saudi Arabia and it was not underhand.

That may or may not be so. 

But if it was a campaign donation as the Prime Minister alluded to, can he explain why the bank declaration stated “legal fees''? 

Legal fees for what? For the sale-of-passport scheme? 

And if it was a campaign donation, was it for the party? Have the funds been transferred to the party since? 

And while we are at it – who is this donor anyhow? 

(Show me your company and I will show you who you are). 

The other dynamic in this entire issue, is that we have a government and a prime minister that have set themselves up as beyond reproach with matters of integrity.

With lesser mortals maybe we should let this pass.

But for leaders whose biggest claim to fame is some self-declared sainthood, the development should give us a funny feel in the stomach. 

And it is not enough to use as a counter-argument that NNP did worse.

Frankly, the mainstream media have given the Thomas administration a pass on this issue - as on many other issues such as the Sewang matter and how the PM was made to sign an MOU and then rebuked for doing so; and how the passport-selling Grenada Individual Investor Program had begun to be promoted without the approval of cabinet. 

If only this accusation of the $150,000 US was against Keith Mitchell, I would have heard all the pious statements of either concern or condemnation. 

And one final point – and I make it both jokingly and seriously in the same breath. 

Glen Noel and some former comrades of mine have sought to dismiss my writings as a front for an agenda of the “conspirators”. 

To do so is to cheapen my self-authored manifesto of rebellion for which I shall not apologize. 

If they ask you what I want, tell them – less hypocrisy; real accountability and transparency – and a little delivery for ordinary people.

Until that time I will remain unconquered and unbowed.

I wish I am wrong this time

THE PRIME MINISTER’s goon squad must forget the demonizing of everyone brave enough to question the lack of direction of this current Grenada government, and come to terms with the reality.  

That reality is that the problem of the ruling National Democratic Congress is it suffers from an acute case of leadership deficit. 

If the truth be told, this government has been badly led for a long time – by a prime minister who, whenever faced with complex situations, resorted to seeing things as black or white, rather than shades of gray. 

Any man, who fails to enhance his nuance, as this current prime minister has done, effectively declares himself unfit to lead a bunch of men and women with varying styles and attitudes. 

The problems of modern-day Grenada has nothing to do with ideology nor power nor ambition. 

It is simply because of failed leadership. 

Tillman Thomas has squandered the many opportunities he had to be a father figure to his cabinet, and in fact chose and sponsored conflict, when he should have been playing the role of healer. 

Even when members openly pleaded for dialog and discussion to address the problems, he quipped there was nothing to talk about – resorting instead to divisive language about good over evil. (Never mind his attempt at back-tracking in parliament this week). 

Thomas’ lack of nuance has had him seeing every question as a challenge; every alternative idea as a rebellion; every bold suggestion as an unholy gamble and every critique as a dangerous element. 

He became a theocratic dictator who believed that by divine ordination his cabinet men and women were the back-up choir who never could mess with the arrangement. 

Rather than reach out, he dug deep; thinking it is the best way to save his prime ministership.

What he has done, in the end, is effectively undermined himself.

There were people who maybe also had the capacity to breathe some sense into him – but instead they fed the beast. They emboldened him, provided him with affirmation, and justified their positions with vacuous arguments of not wanting to get into "dog fights'' with the PM; of being satisfied to field in the slips; and of playing behind the captain even when the team is clearly losing and of continuing to play even when all ten wickets in the innings have fallen. 

And so with Karl Hood’s resignation on Thursday, the chickens continued coming home to roost. 

Two years ago, I predicted this will end like this way; and, oh, how I wish I was wrong. 

The cancer that is now in stage five emerged a year before that; then, a handful of self-appointed acolytes systematically sowed seeds of division, hiding behind pen-names as Stone Crusher to publish epistles direct from the Prime Minister’s Office. 

The weekly manifesto of division was printed weekly in the Today newspaper, and the echo transmitted on the holy Sabbath to an unsuspecting class. 

One of my early editors Leslie Pierre always used to tell me that water consistently dripping on stone finally wears it away. 

If the Prime Minister’s political machinery preaches division for three years – dividing the cabinet into gangs – what end results did they expect? 

And, as you watch the news tonight, in their eager attempt to demonize yet another minister who resigns, they will miss seeking answer to the fundamental question that matters. 

Rather than seek to ask who is Hood and what he wants – the news cycle must instead seek to answer the question – what’s next and how can this end to the benefit of ordinary people? 

Prime Minister Tillman Thomas did not get an endorsement in parliament on Tuesday; he just received a stay of execution. 

What the vote did was give him the breathing room to do something honorable.

Take a page from Bruce Golding – the former Prime Minister of Jamaica – who once he became damaged goods – handed over the leadership of his party and subsequently the Prime Ministership of his country.

While the move did not guarantee the Jamaica Labour Party victory – it at least saved it from complete annihilation, and gave it a chance to bounce back in five years. 

A similar move by Thomas also won’t guarantee NDC victory in the next general election – but will give it a chance to remain viable and credible.  

To do that will be the essence of good governance. Anything less will be inherently reckless and selfish. 

I am not betting he’d do the right thing.

But oh how I wish I am wrong this time.

Thomas’ sorry legacy sealed with parliament debate

SOMETIMES in sport, they tell you forget the final score, and remember how the game was played.

That will hold true during Tuesday’s No Confidence motion in the Grenada parliament.

The motion will be duly defeated; but Tillman Thomas will not have won.

In voting against the motion rightly put forward by the opposition New National Party, government MPs have decided to somehow find a way to save their party  -- if in a strange way it gives the Prime Minister more time to seal his increasing sordid legacy.

The 11 government MPs, all caught between the proverbial devil and the deep blue sea, will choose the former – because they are sure of what they are getting.

Delving into the deep blue sea will give most cold feet because of not being sure what lies underneath.

In some ways, the debate will end in an unsatisfactory position – where all sides will declare victory – but where everybody really loses.

For those who pay little attention to how the food is made, and rather concentrate on the final product – the bitter taste it all leaves will leave them equally confused.

But politics is a science of both survival and incentive – where people have to individually live to fight another day, while invoking a collective good they themselves cannot properly describe.

And that, in a strange way put all 15 members of the House of Representatives in the same boat.

There are lurking dangers for all sides coming in.

The NNP motion has a point – which ordinary Grenada gets. But in making that point, its four MPs have to be careful against over reach.

People get it – this government is dead. But Grenadians have a sense of proportion and would detest a ravenous feeding on the carcass.

The funeral rites must be measured and respectful.

The eight of the 11 MPs, who like Foreign Minister Karl Hood, have been privately and not-so privately fretting of the wasted years, must not in their fight for collective survival, act as if “all is well with our souls.”

Even in this unenviable dance, being apologists for four years of underachievement and clueless leadership will be unacceptable.

Apologize if you will – for being part of a team that has let people down; throw the leader under the bus where he belongs – because he has already thrown his team the bus with his ineptness; and then speak to a vision to which we can relate.

It won’t guarantee any success at elections – whenever it is called – but will give you some credit in the bank for some future time.

Like couples facing a separation – you may hang on a little longer for the children – but eventually you need to go your separate way.

The other three MPs will no doubt try to use the occasion as if to put the NNP on trial – to accuse it of everything imaginary while it was there.

They may even also try to impute treasonous motives by their own colleagues who have dared to ask questions about their own government which came in promising so much, and delivered so little – except in hate and spite.

The first one had a currency at a certain time and place.

But four years have passed since Mr Thomas and Mr Burke began running things.

We already voted on the NNP years. That’s why there was an 11-4 result on July 8^th, 2008.

The people are now ready for a referendum on the time of this current government.

If its strategists should stopped listening to the George Grant-MTV inspired echo chamber and drive out to the real Grenada from whence the PM came, they will find strong opinions on what has turned out to be a sorry legacy.

Or – maybe they should take up their own poll – and start believing what it says.

But even as those figures show that most people are already turned off – the three disciples need to seek to find an opening to defend this government's record and make their case.

Anything different will be disingenuous and vexatious.