The general rule is that any action or decision that may cause offence must be justified by its context.
If I must paint you the graphic details of a macabre murder, or the massacre of a helpless village by a rogue unit, I must satisfy you at the end of it that the intent to shock is driven by a higher cause: to show the frailty of life and in particular the wantonness of taking it. I must inspire the notion that sure punishment of the offenders is fitting.
If a set of politicians must upset the tone of Christmas by hurling the silly season smack in the middle of Yule, then they ought to be able to justify it. So, what context of theirs indeed justified the intended use of political muscle to have an audience with their Prime Minister?
None, clearly.
Some of the Eager Eleven admittedly were not about the heavy-handedness; and were not all that keen about the “draft letter” – even less so when they learnt the Press had got itself a copy. But they had been sold on a powwow with their leader about a matter conceived more in contrived fear and undue panic than reasoned from substance. Action had sprung from a chronically psychosocial fantasy.
Minister of Finance Chris Sinckler in his confession to Editor-In-Chief Kaymar Jordan confirmed that a “draft letter” existed and that it spoke to the fact that “for some period of time . . . some members of the party, including MPs, were a little concerned about the party’s level of public engagement on issues affecting the country”. Mr Sinckler confessed too that, not being one to shirk responsibility, he allowed himself to be put at the centre of the brouhaha by “some people” from the Eager Eleven obviously and their creators.
Penitently, the MP stated: “I take responsibility for having worked with members to look at the issue.”
This should count for something. Sadly, the “members” he worked with are yet to say yeah, or to commiserate publicly.
As to the argument that the “letter” did not indicate intention to replace the Prime Minister with someone with more “form”, surely no one would address a letter to a leader saying explicitly “we want to meet with you to remove you”! Nonsense!
And, on the foolishness being bandied about on a media-promoted “coup”, I will only say planned “coups” are secret. You know about them when they are successful or when they have failed.
In the meantime, Prime Minister Freundel Stuart stands like a colossus. To such a height that Mr Sinckler swears he would never want – again – to be a Prime Minister. I take with a pinch of salt Chris’ declared position that he has closed his eyes to Prime Ministership forever. Confession sometimes tends to weary the soul and stretch the mind.
But I will accept Mr Sinckler’s putting his neck to the sword for his less brave colleagues.
Mr Stuart’s leadership style has been different from that of his predecessors. He is less disposed to haste; but does not lack for intellect, integrity and decency. And I do not grasp how much more charismatic his critics can want him to be.
I also take issue with this promulgated gobbledegook that David Thompson would rather not have had Freundel Stuart take his place as leader of the party, Government and country. It is a foolishness that we need not hear any more, and its propagandists would be better off finding something more meaningful to do.
We have things of greater import to handle, at the very top being managing effectively the affairs of Barbados in this harsh economic environment. This is not a time for theatrics and poosharking. No one knows this more than Freundel Stuart.
Now, I will not be so presumptuous as to tell him whose heads should roll, or how he should reconfigure his Cabinet, but I expect he will engrave his authority on it, the colossus he has become – and that he will temper some of his judgment with mercy.
Merry Christmas!
