Some strong doses of political reality

I have sat and noticed, with both some amusement and amazement, the reaction to Peter David's induction into the ruling New National Party.

    It is like taking notice of three worlds really - something that became very evident to me in the run up to the last elections.

 There is a small group of cyber activists -- about 40 to 60 of them -- 70% of whom reside overseas -- most of who hate anything that smells Keith Mitchell; but who are so disconnected  from the modern Grenadian political reality that they made the NDC believe the last time that they could win anything, but nothing.

  Then there are the real hardcore NDC supporters -- mainly in the urban areas -- about 5,000 of them.

  And then there is the rest of Grenada -- mainly in the rural areas -- their political outlook essentially center-left; their social connection is in the kind of political populism so successfully espouse by Dr Mitchell for most of the last 25 years.

   To understand the reaction to David's decision, is to understand how these three worlds operate.

   David's political decision was not for him alone. It essentially provides the bridge and the cover -- for the rural progressive that previously supported NDC -- those who never felt, even through all the years, that NDC at its core was a party that supports their aspirations.

   Up until now, however, these people also never felt they can make an automatic switch to NNP,  because of what they felt was Mitchell's reactionary tendencies.

  So they languished in a political purgatory for the best part of the last three years.

 These people had essentially become political orphans after the  divisive summer of 2012 -- eventually burnt by the NDC arranged-marriage, but finding it awkward to turn to NNP after a decade of scorched-earth politics.

   So for things to be where they are now, meant a lot of parts had to move in the right direction.

  First it took Mitchell, who in spite his big poll victory of 2013 -- learnt a lesson from a time of similar triumph back in 1999.

  That first NNP victory was quickly undermined by over-reach and over-reaction; by an eagerness to fight a fresh battle everyday in a chest-thumping way;  rather than seeking consensus. We provoked it sometimes, but Mitchell willingly took the bait every time -- to his own ultimate demise.

    Things turned around so fast that by 2003, NNP was fighting for survival. NDC should have won that elections too in the last two weeks, if only one proposed bold decision was taken. But there were not enough believers in that room, and the rest - as they say - was history (But more about that at another time).

    Having been chastened by the lessons of his defeat in 2008, Mitchell returned five years later; determined not to make the same mistakes he did; and clear in his mind that in a time of such national challenge he needed to reach out beyond his base.

   He read the results well. 2013 was not just an NNP victory. Yes given the tides, it would have won alone. But it took a loose coalition with NDC's rural progressives -- interestingly led by a man from Town -- to guarantee the whitewash.

   The Town of St George, St George's North East and the two St Patrick's seats would not have fallen without it. The battle might have been harder in St Andrew's South East as well.

    David's entry into the NNP is not as far-fetched as it may seem at the surface; it is not as sacrilegious as the hardcore NDC acolytes would make believe.

   I first raised the issues of the need for what I then called "a historic realignment" back  in late 2003 in a rum shop on Lagoon Road with Einstein Louison, then an NNP heavyweight.

   We discussed then about the apparent disconnect between a generation whose politics have been inspired by the struggles of the 70s and 80s -- and the liberal children they have sown -- who by and large support NNP; and the then new NDC leadership who at the core should naturally appeal to that demographic.

   But the intervening years had become so bitter, with even Louison himself once leading his own tirade on an old comrade at that forgettable press conference, that any such 'rum shop talk" about "realignment" -- seemed like just that: talk.

  What has dramatically shifted the tide, however, has been the new Mitchell.

  The Prime Minister rightfully seized that opportunity; and within less than 24 hours after his re-election last year he came up with the theme of Project Grenada.

    "It is our view that every Grenadian is a shareholder in what we call Project Grenada," he said in calling for a new unity at his Trade Center swearing in on February 20, 2013.

  That first official outreach culminated in what happened at Paraclete recently.

   But there were other irresistible forces that allowed David to move.

   More than Mitchell's outreach, what sealed the dealwere the many ordinary people -- NDC rural progressives and the NNP rank- and- file -- all made from the same cloth -- who kept telling David as he went around the country -- that he needed to do this both for himself and for them.

   If you don't visit the heartland of such places at Mt Horne and Hope; Vincennes and Darvey, then you would never understand the positive buzz out there about what has happened in the local politics in the last few weeks.

  That is what makes the cyber chatter so both amusing and amazing; it is so disconnected from the on-the-ground Grenadian reality.

  I always give the example of back in 2011 -- David was still a minister in the NDC government.

  One weekend he went with me to visit my sister in St Andrew's, and a neighbour came over and said to him. "You (is) Mr Peter David?" To which he replied "yes." She then said: "You see me, I am an NNP to the bone, if you cut (me) heart you will see green. And I don't like you all government; but we like you. You (is) a good man."

   NNP's rank and file demanded Peter David. And the party's leaders were also smart enough to hear that call.

  Now I have heard the "righteous indignation" of "how dare you" from the NDC supporters -- the declining amounts; and the full-time Mitchell haters.

   They are quick to remind us of how the NNP leadership, especially Dr Mitchell, came at David, particularly between 2002 and 2008.

  To that I say, politics is informed by shifting realities.

  Tillman Thomas was jailed by the Nazim Burke-Peter David revolution; and he had joined Mitchell in the Grenada Democratic Movement in trying to overthrow it.

  That historic fact is not an indictment on any of the players. It is just an acknowledgement of the political reality of that time.

   The other "dare you" argument is that -- how can David join Mitchell for all that the Prime Minister did in his previous rule and that David fought so hard against.

   Well  -- the people of Grenada had a referendum on Mitchell's rule and chastised him in 2008.  These same people, essentially said, "you're forgiven' -- and gave him a chance at redemption in 2013.

  And that too is a political reality -- that cannot be dismissed, as the NDC would in its elitist way, as a fairy tale.

  It is hard to argue against the democratic will of the majority. They seem to get it right every time.

   But other than the tons of emotional outbursts, I have yet to read  a sound political analysis to why the move is a bad one for either David, Mitchell, the NNP or Grenada.

  Yea, it's a very bad one for NDC. I got that. They get that too!

   Terry Marryshow's  writing this week in a local newspaper said it well. He wrote: "The comments from the NDC activists can be likened to the jealous husband who separated from his wife because of irreconcilable differences but adopts the attitude that if he can’t have her nobody else can. I find that attitude very unfortunate and I see no disgrace in the decision that Peter has taken to join the NNP, which is where he sees he can make his biggest contribution."

Comrade Naz and the leadership deficit

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."

  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.

Running from George Worme's side

I had promised myself to leave that NDC leadership thing alone -- and maybe I will still do eventually after this.

    I must confess there is a huge chunk of me, for largely selfish partisan reasons,  that wants Nazim Burke to become leader.

  I understand the fears of William Joseph, George Worme and company about Naz as leader. But truthfully, I would love having to deal with some "raw meat" for a while to come.

   Additionally, anytime it seems like I would end up on the same side on any issue as George Worme, I begin to get worried.

  And so for that reason, I ain't joining any Naz fight-down.

  (I know it  is self-serving in my regards. But pardon my indulgence just this once.)

  With talk swirling of the majority of the current executive wanting Franka Bernardine to become leader instead -- because of the growing fears of what Willie called the "raw meat" syndrome  -- Burke has obviously, and rightfully, upped his mobilization offensive.

   Jenny Rapier was whipping the women's arm in line to ensure that there is total support for Burke.

  He, in turn, has consulted two public relations people locally to help recreate his image in the lead up to the convention -- one has taken the job; the other said they can't do it because of client conflict.

    That, of course, is natural and fair, for Burke; a man, who in spite of having the majority of delegates -- at least at this stage -- is seeming to have so many questions remaining.

   Those PR consultants will have a hard time -- and good luck to my colleagues on this professional job -- because of Burke's penchant to -- well, to use an American political term -- "mis-speak."

  In defending and promoting his leadership credentials Sunday, Burke said that people outside of the party are opposed to his leadership because they know that he is the only one that will be "tough on NNP."

   Basically what Naz did in that comment is to suggest that Bernardine and Tricks, and whoever else might aspire for leader, can't make the grade because somehow they will be "soft on NNP."

   Was that another Naz classic "throw them under the bus" tactic that Willie complained about? The tactic he used so well against Tillo, re the Sewang affair?

  It is the same line of argument his cronies have used against Joseph -- that somehow because he stands on the other side of Naz's argument -- he is "soft on NNP."

   There is this growing intolerance -- and you hear from his supporters on telephone call-in programmes -- that this is "Naz time now"; and that anybody  thinking of contesting against him  is somehow in some NNP conspiracy.

   But, anyhow, that is the king of paranoia I have come to know so well.

  His sponsors have also been fatally arguing that "outsiders" should not be  "dipping their mouths" in NDC business.

   Which, funnily enough, brings the argument to Willie's point. Winning at convention might be easy, but is winning nationally possible?

   You see, political parties are not boy scout organisations -- and so what happens to all of them is of interest to a wider populace -- even non-members; simply because political parties can become governments.

   It is anybody's guess at this stage if Bernadine will run. (I am betting, maybe wishing really, that she won't).

  But to her eternal credit, in the midst of what Willie called the coordinated "online assassination"against him from inside the party this past week, she came out in defense of his right  to his positions, without imputing any motives to his statements.

   It was indeed a class act.

  And it was in contrast to the coordinated smearing of Willie's good name and character on the two radio programmes that Naz is in control of -- Heartbeat and the Eagle Eye.

    I have had my bruising intellectual battles with Willie through the years -- both as colleague and foe. He can give as good as he gets, but it never was personal nor nasty.

  Willie has a mind of his own. And for me I always joked with him, that he is too right wing to exist  -- but he ain't a bitter man nor a jealous man -- as they have tried to make him out to be.

  I was actually surprised that he joined the party a couple of years ago in the first place -- because we always agreed on one thing through our years of arguments -- we ain't joining no party; don't care who it is.

    Like Franka, Patrick Simmons showed his worth also this past week. He said all the right things about unity and healing.  Tricks is a man with his positions, but never a divisive fella -- not even in the worst days of acrimony.

   The problem the likes of Franka and Tricks face going forward, is that their attitude will not be the dominant one under the Naz NDC  -- unless he somehow gets a conversion of an on-the-road-to-Damascus type.

  Not that I am complaining about that.

  As a non-member who should not have "dipped my mouth" in the first place, I will be cool with the continuation of an attitude that has weakened the NDC. 

  I guess that will now put me and Naz on the same side.

  Well, anything -- once I am not on George Worme's side!