The Battle of St. George

Mao Tse-Tsung once said something that has always stuck with me. He stated that “the cardinal responsibility of leadership is to identify the dominant contradiction at each point of the historical process and to work out a central line to resolve it”.


In Grenada’s chequered political story, punctuated with periods of power and leadership struggles and marked by commas of uncertainty, striking pause into our democractic systems, this is apt and chillingly true. Bernard Coard misjudged this responsibility when he tried to chastise the People’s Leader, between chastening the ego of dear Maurice and mapping out a new route ahead for JEWEL. The National Democratic Congress was formed in 1986 when Francis Alexis and Tillman Thomas judged this responsibility accurately and defected from Blaize’s New National Party. Keith Mitchell again judged this contradiction accurately when he promoted himself leader of the Party forcing Blaize to form The National Party.

It appears that this moment was misjudged over the last week. Having been prodded and pressed and urged and cajoled to show his leadership muscles and bare his political balls, Tillman Thomas decided to re-shuffle his Cabinet. This should be an exercise straightforward in itself- it was done only last year when Karl Hood was demoted as Minister of Health. Alas, reshuffling a Cabinet is not the same as reshuffling a pack of well worn cards in a rumshop game of rummy. Fronting his PR man to make his announcement (bad move), he allegedly did not discuss the decisions in Cabinet nor did he afford the affected persons (much loved man about town Peter David, newly elected Michael Church and the well spoken Glynis Roberts) the chance to dissent or discuss. Mao Tse Tsung would not have been happy. The by then agitated appointees decided therefore not to attend the swearing in of the new Cabinet as they were not happy with their new portfolios- Church is now a mere Minister of State (brazenly and arrogantly confirmed by Thomas), Glynis Roberts is now Minister for Labour and Peter David is now not the much envied Minister of Foreign Affairs (with all the incumbent perks) but has been relegated to Tourism.

On the surface, part of me was visibly annoyed that these elected MPs had acted rather like petulant teenagers and had shown their hand as individuals who were more interested in their political egos rather than the general development of country. However, I was not surprised. It takes a very particular type of individual to run for political office and these are not usually shrinking violets. The events of Friday 19 November were critical, not because of the anecdotal value of the “walk-outs” but because it crystallised what many predicted as the internal combustion of Congress. Several points are now salient.

First, Tillman Thomas’ leadership style is not popular and this tacit confrontation marked the first open challenge to his leadership. And a challenge it is. The demotion of Peter David (who I like) was not just a demotion per se, but was a direct anointing of the anti-Peter, a tacit announcement that it was not he who was second in command. This reshuffle was poignant in what was not said but party insiders knew that it was a moment showing that the heir apparent was Nazim Burke. Were I Peter David who worked really hard for the party, I would not like this unilateral decision one little bit. Be warned, this is not a struggle between Thomas and David- this is rather David annoyed that he has lost to Burke.

These changes allegedly were the result of party advisors who appear to have colonised and overpopulated Congress’ ranks. Special Advisor for Press, Special Advisor for Policies, Special Advisor for who knows what- have all appeared to have taken on great importance in the party, reminiscent of Bristol’s warning of a “second Cabinet”. Being a fan of the democratic process, I would not even bestow upon them the word Cabinet, not even in inverted commas: they are unelected political appointees, some with skill and some utterly inept judging by the fact that the vast majority have not thrived in the private sector. These special advisors (and their sons and daughters) appear to be the most ample beneficiaries of the fruits of Congress- serving in prized positions, now it seems even at the expense of our elected representatives. Pardon me, but Dennoth Modeste, albeit a son of the Victorian soil, did not stand for elected office, neither did Glen Noel nor Ann Antoine nor Franka Bernadine, although I have every confidence in the latter. It cannot be right that it is seen that grace and favours and the privilege of speaking in the Prime Minister’s ear falls to those who did not sacrifice career ambitions and risk the possibility to humiliation to stand for public office, to the ultimate reality audience ever- the official polls. It absolutely cannot be the case or seen to be the case that certain of these individuals occupy more favoured positions? What is it that Dennoth Modeste can do that Peter David, an educated, well-spoken man cannot be seen to do, and if there is indeed something, why wasn’t he doing it during all his years in the diplomatic service? Is Glen Noel the only reasonable choice as Minister for Housing? Why not Osborne James, who was actually elected? It is not as if one is more qualified than the other. It may be that the public dissenters have a point, albeit not particularly well handled.

Having said all that, I have always admired Thomas in that he seems to be incredibly humble but like much of what we have inherited from our colonial past, we seem to always wish for a leader who is larger than life, with equal parts of ceremony with substance. Thomas has been chastised as not being able to “speak” because his accent is Hermitagean with accents of Sauteurs. I would say there is nothing wrong with that, but maybe because we are so small we suffer from what I call the “semblance of statesmanship” complex. In my eyes, there is nothing wrong with the way he answers questions- short, to the point, honest, unpolished by cheap spin and PR, but to the vast majority of Grenadians, he does not appear like the archetypal “Prime Minister”. Added to this, the abject failure of Congress (and I say this as an omniscient narrator without any fear or favour) to capitalise on the shortcomings of the NNP under his leadership, has weakened faith in his hand. Job creation is virtually at a standstill, the effects of the recession has had a toll on economic prospects, the tourism industry is still underdeveloped, the release of Bernard Coard was handled with a lack of aplomb, there has been no significant investment in infrastructure, the youth programme has been dismantled, among other things, it is not difficult to see why Grenadians are eager to have Thomas deliver on the change he promised.

The question now seems to be, will that change be a change without him, and not without David and his cohorts as he hoped. The decision he has made to make these changes appear to have inversely, operated as a judgment on his tenure as leader. The result seems inevitable. There will be a battle. Congress can continue without Thomas or David or both. I know that Thomas Jefferson said that he who cannot obey cannot command, but what occurs when the act of obeying will betray pride and ambition?