|
|
News
|
|
|
|
Opinion
|
|
|
|
SKN
Observer
|
|
|
|
Advertising
|
|
|
|
Resources
|
|
|
 |
 |
| |
| Integrity in Public Life |
|
|
Recently, I made a call on the People's
Action Movement (PAM) to change its leader and find
someone else to fill that position. I did this in the
face of the impending court case which has challenged
the Denzil Douglas Party with irregularities in the
January 25 general elections.
I made this call with the personal conviction that when
the Learned Judge studies the evidence of bias and fraud,
the People's Action Movement will win the case and a
fresh election will have to be called within a period
of ninety days.
I made another call for Mr. Grant to decline to contest
the seat, even it some of the PAM supporters in the
constituency urge him to run again. I wish I was wrong,
but I am of the firm belief that if Mr. Grant runs in
the by-election, he would lose the contest, notwithstanding
thet fact that he had got within a whisper of winning
on January 25. I believe that this time he would lose
by a much larger margin although the list will be cleaned
of the Labour supporters from No. 6 and No. 3.
I base my position on the Marriott Affair which took
place in the height of the election, in fact just days
before.
That was a serious matter, which in the fever of the
elections did not receive the sober appraisal it deserved.
Furthermore, by the time the story broke Mr. Grant has
already done some advance damage control, having given
his listeners his own version of what took place at
the Marriott.
I heard Mr. Grant's version and I was mad at Denzil
Douglas and Ricky Skerritt for trying to enmesh Lindsay
Grant in a snare. Like all or nearly all of his supporters.
I refused to look at the circulating video and I tried
to rationalize that the evil plan of Douglas and Skerritt
was deserving of greater condemnation that the apparent
naiveté of Lindsay Grant. I even toyed with the
idea that the voice and the images might have been doctored.
After the elections were over, however, I decided to
take a peep at the video in question and I must confess,
I was dumbfounded by what I saw and heard. Mr. Grant,
the leader of the People's Action Movement, the bitter
rival of Denzil Douglas, the leader of the Labour Party,was
sitting in the hotel suite of Denzil Douglas, discussing
a deal with an apparent stranger.
Mr. Grant was in the video bargaining for a bribe, upping
the bid from 1.5 million to 1.7 million dollars. He
was sitting, sipping and babbling all kinds of self-incriminating
things. Even Grant's biggest detractors viewed the scene
with deep disbelief, unable to figure out how a man
who had assumed the mantle of leadership of the major
Opposition Party, a man who was well poised to becoming
the replacement Prime Minister could be moved to gamble
so recklessly.
It was indeed a reckless gamble, a squander of all good
will with which a large segment of the population had
showered on this leader.
During the campaign I went all out for him. Richard
Caines came out of retirement to join me as we excited
large crowds with the hope that they would soon see
the back of Denzil Douglas and that a new order headed
by Lindsay Grant would be ushered in to replace Douglas
and the dark cloud which hovered over his head.
Apologising to my audience for having supported Douglas
in former years, I was prepared to bear my personal
blame for the nepotism and corruption which characterised
the years of Douglas rule. I assured my listeners that
after the elections Douglas would be forced to explain
mysteries like Lex Consulting, the 76 million US dollars
and all the other puzzles which Mr. Grant himself raised
with so much drama during the election.
Up to a week before the elections all minds in St. Kitts
were on Lex Consulting. Douglas supporters were longing
for acceptable answers. They got all night music and
fireworks instead. Grant's supporters were searching
for answers and nails to seal Douglas's coffin and bury
him. They thought they were coming close to an explanation
on the twenty-something properties and his money including
the enormous sums spent on the elections.
The fence-sitters looked on. They flocked to hear Richard
and me, a sign that they were ready to get off the fence.
They supported Grant's cry for Integrity in Public Office
legislation.
Then up came the Marriott fiasco which sent everybody
reeling. Some steadied themselves quietly and decided
that they would not after all vote for Grant's party.
I believe that the supporters who lived in No. 4 voted
for Grant regardless, some of them out of blind love
and loyalty, many because, in the heat of the contest
they could not care less and never took the trouble
to look at the video.
Grant may not have lost any votes because of the scandal
but it is certain that some of his colleagues running
in other constituencies did. I am not overlooking the
impact of the strangers from abroad, but I believe that
among the independent intelligentsia in east and central,
the Marriott Affair affected the outcome of the elections.
When Lindsay Grant decided to go to the Marriott to
negotiate for money, he betrayed his own colleagues
by not even telling them about the deal. They suffered
a severe shock when the drama unfolded. As the ensuing
tempest raged, they kept a total silence. They did not
know what to say, they could not find what to say. They
were caught off guard. The issue unraveled in the heat
of an election in which each of them was fighting the
fight of their lives.
After the tumult and the shouting, however, sober thinking
had set in. PAM supporters cannot now avoid the reasonable
inevitable conclusion that the Marriott was a major
scandal that their leader was unfortunately entrapped
in a sting operation and the he is now too tainted to
do anything else but decline the leadership of the party.
To demand less would be severely damaging to the party's
reputation.
This prescription is in the interest of the party as
well as in that of democracy. Even those who are not
members or friends of the People's Action Movement have
a deep and abiding interest in its welfare. It is in
our collective interest as citizens, regardless of which
party we support, for the PAM to thrive and grow and
receive acceptance as an alternative government.
It is not in our interest to see the opposition party
battered and bruised and beaten to the ground, impotent
to represent those who support it.
This is what has happened to PAM since 1995. Its leader
has been out-trumped, its supporters have been derided
and Dr Douglas, having ridden over them, has all but
declared himself our dictator for life.
The recent upsurge of PAM pleased not only its loyal
supporters, but the rest of the population who understand
the nature and purpose of a strong opposition.
Now all the gains of the past two years stand threatened
by this sad episode and will totally disappear if Mr.
Grant insists on contesting the seat which he just narrowly
lost.
The forces of the Labour Party will descend on him with
fury. All their focus will be on the spectacle at the
Marriott. They will mount it on the screen, play it
and replay it. The Labor villagers will recite it every
day. The message will be irresistible. It will be a
political tsunami.
Some of the villagers won't pay attention to the onslaught.
They will shut their eyes and ears in blind love and
loyalty to their chosen candidate. But he will lose
this brutal battle as many who regarded him as honorable
will now view him in a different light.
The loss of this seat which had come within the grasp
of the Opposition will be disastrous to the party and
to democracy. It will damage Pam with the prospect of
never again getting close to winning that seat. It will
damage democracy by frustrating the promise of an alternative
government and the assured hope of freedom.
This situation is to delicate for any further gamble.
If Mr. Grant steps down from the leadership and declines
the party's candidacy, he would be dealing a deadly
blow to Dr. Douglas. It would be equal to admitting
to a mistake and accepting the consequences and calling
on Douglas to do the same.
PAM must find a fresh candidate from the many available
prospects in the organization. This is not to say that
there is no gratitude for the part that Mr. Grant had
played and the sacrifice which he has made. Then he
was the party's greatest asset, now he is its biggest
liability.
PAM must win that seat and there must not be any gamble
with it. The fielding of a new candidate, who is unencumbered
by the baggage of the Marriott, will slide the seat
into the grasp of PAM and keep it there indefinitely.
This is not a palatable message. It is more like a bad
tasting medicine which is taken with all kinds of facial
contortions but once it gets down will bring health
and wellness to the body.
|
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
