If we consider that the office of Prime Minister was thrust upon Mr Freundel Stuart, we would step back and pause. He did not go cap in hand seeking the job.
Indeed, he stepped up to the plate. We should have by now exhausted the possible deficiencies of which we accuse him; it is about time that we accept him as he is.
When elections are called, if we want to, we shall have an opportunity to select someone who we feel will meet the thousand different qualities now required in order to perform a Herculean task; it is time that we leave the perceived shortcoming aside.
However, the decision to hand the Alexandra issue over to a commission when the school goes on long vacation shows deep consideration for the children; although it will throw the real decision back to a final arbiter. Judging from the pronouncements of the Everyday Law gentleman, the problem seems indeed complex. In a short passage seeking to expound on the matter by way of reference, he quotes six pieces of legislation that diametrically conflict.
It reminds me of the seemingly irreconcilable argument between my two friends Mr Ezra and Mr Carl, both of whom are deliberating the asinine nature of the law. At first blush I tend to side with Mr C, seeing the strong attraction to law of many strange characters.
No wonder the Prime Minister is treading lightly. But what has me discombobulated is the readiness to invoke strict adherence to the law by the Cabinet. Does not strict adherence apply as well to Mr Al Barrack?
Did not the High Court rule twice in his favour? As a country, are we not exposing our tail to the world? Is not the gander entitled to the same treatment as the goose? Must Mr Barrack have to tread the lonely road to the Caribbean Court of Justice like the Jamaican lady?
If she wins the case, would it mean that those Guyanese who were rustled up in the middle of the night or who (as it is being said) were snatched from their warm beds can now appeal for justice? And they may have a better case, seeing that Guyana has acknowledged the Caribbean Court for appeals and not Jamaica – this shows that the ordinary citizen has more savvy than the government.
They say that politics is a blood sport – not that it gets into your blood. On the contrary, it seeks to draw blood. Other blood sports are bullfighting or cockfighting or what the gladiators did in the Colosseum in Rome.
Unfortunately, I do not think that the present furore will subside. The issues are so newsworthy that predators will continue to pick the bones. A Prime Minister must have a stout heart; most past owners of the seat seemed to have had a problem with the heart.
Come, let us reason together. In a situation like the one in which our children have been submerged, we could look back and speculate how previous Prime Ministers would have dealt with the situation.
Take for example the Father Of Our Nation. The principal would have heard on the six o’clock morning news the following bulletin: “Our youngsters at The Alexandra School this morning will welcome our new principal Mr Bjorn Wojodjie. They can now rejoice because peace has eventually come to the school.”
Later in the day, after collecting his DAILY NATION, the former principal would notice a small advertisement: “Former principal of The Alexandra School is asked to collect cheque between 10 a.m. and noon at the Ministry of Finance.”
Or, for example, our charismatic Prime Minister of the 1970s and 1980s: the principal would have been summoned to the Office of the Prime Minister. In the Prime Minister’s Office would be a secretary and the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister would be dangling in his hand two sheets of paper with typing.
