Wise men, and there are many in political life, who know anything about politics and letters would be wary about discussing, drafting, writing and – God forbid – signing a letter (or any piece of paper) suggesting, demanding or even merely hinting to a party leader that “leadership” of the party (or worse still, the Government) needs to be discussed.
Such missives (pieces of paper) are weapons of mass destruction when they fall into the wrong hands, which may sometimes be those attached to the leader’s body.
The “Eager 11” letter is therefore deserving of proper political analysis, but nowadays, a lot of wishy-washy spouting passes for serious debate, and a virtual barroom atmosphere develops in which empty rhetoric becomes the order of the day.
But serious pastors in particular know that politics is no Sunday school, and so while one man of the cloth, Senator Dr David Durant, claims it is a little misunderstanding which might make the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) stronger, chairman of the St Michael West Constituency Council, Pastor Vincent Wood, in last Thursday’s DAILY NATION, disagrees pointedly with the goodly senator, whom he says is seeing the picture through “blinded eyes”.
Charging his brother “to be real”, Pastor Wood declares that “ministers of God must be objective and realistic”.
In his [Wood’s] opinion, “if Mr Stuart does not take action now, the group will become bigger and they will bring him down”. This, he says, is “not a prophecy but a word of wisdom and commonsense”.
The gravity and importance of the “letter” grows daily.
This brings us to an analysis of the numbers. Since the 11 are all “elected eagers”, they form the majority of the 21 elected members. But the letter properly understood might also mean that the Cabinet, which consists of 16 elected members (and some senators), is split right down its “elected” centre, since eight of the 11 are in the Cabinet!
Now, therein lies the enormous danger of this situation and I note Pastor Wood’s perceptive opinion that left unattended, the problem could get bigger.
Chris Sinckler said of the grave concerns shared by the 11, “so too did other members of the party and the public generally”.
If we accept that statement as gospel (and we must), then Pastor Wood is “spot on”.
The troubling potential for growth in the numbers does exist.
Sinckler said too, that there were complaints about Stuart’s style as opposed to his substance, but careful study of leaders, especially prime ministers, would show that the style is the substance – you cannot easily separate the two – and hence “lump it or like it” becomes an acceptable diktat of prime ministerial power.
Think on these two things.
Six months ago, Prime Minister Stuart reshuffled the Cabinet and moved the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) from Minister of Finance Sinckler to Minister of Labour Dr Esther Byer-Suckoo. The law still allows Sinckler to give investment directions to the NIS, but the department is now politically managed by the doctor, who remarked shortly thereafter that her ministry would now be able to speed up the release of NIS funds for training grants.
Political analysts in our midst ignored the significance of that point then, but I wondered if the lady had won a turf war. Prime ministerial style or substance? You decide, but the lady’s name was not among those calling for the meeting.
Secondly, when Margaret Thatcher was asked if she was interested in becoming British prime minister, she said it would be a 100 years before Britain had a female prime minister. That was in 1969 but by 1979 her official address was No.10 Downing Street.
Questioned about his prime ministerial ambition in the interview, Sinckler said that even if the majority of his colleagues pledged their support to him, he would “politely decline”. Asked if that goes for 2013 and after 2013, he replied: “Forever.”
Politics is, indeed, not a Sunday school!
