IT IS ALWAYS fascinating how politics repeats itself across this region and sadly the more unsavoury aspects are replicated with slight differences from time to time.
During the 2015 St Vincent and the Grenadines election campaign, I penned an article that spoke to similar issues, and expressed the view that in the final analysis these scandals say more about the individuals promoting them than the politicians they target. In this instance, a prime minister was not the target but a simple minister of the Crown in St Lucia; and, worse yet, one who chose not to face the polls.
In the St Vincent case, the intention was obviously to damage the leader politically; however no legal issues arose, and we were free to comment as we saw fit. In this instance, the matter has been placed before the courts, with a young lady being charged with blackmail. As such, my comments need to be confined to the potential political impact of the “scandal” and avoid any reference to her guilt or innocence.
My attitude towards this issue is no different from that of the St Vincent fiasco, with the attendant assumption that the French mantra “public interest stops at the bedroom door” should be applied. The circumstances surrounding the release of the pictures and voice notes should be as irrelevant to the political future of the gentleman and his government as the size of the eggplant that has captured public attention. To my mind, the only issue is a legal one which the court will ultimately determine, and in this regard the Minister has not yet and is not likely to be charged with any offence.
In response to the issue, the National Students’ Council (NSC) of St Lucia has released a statement that clearly picks a side. The council stated: “As a body which serves to bridge a divide between government and students, can we not expect a better example from our leaders?”
And it further calls on the public to temper its judgement of the young lady. I too am sympathetic towards her, largely because of her age and the possibility she might not have fully understood the implications of any actions. However, I find NSC concern about leadership unfortunate and reeking of political bias.
The peculiar problem emerging here has been created by social media, which has liberalised the sharing of private material. In past years, children were shielded from pornographic images that featured strangers, while the challenge now is for young people to understand the implications of sharing images and moreover treating to material featuring public persons that might come into their possession. The legal issues are quite serious, and therefore a strong signal highlighting these issues needs to be sent to people young and old.
There have been discussions regionally and internationally concerning the morality of persons in and out of public or private life creating and sharing these images, and I am firmly on the side that argues adults have the right to create and share their own images, without negative moral judgement. I am also at a loss to understand why someone in public life should be subject to different expectations from the rest of us; and this applies equally to Justin Beiber and Dr Ubaldus Raymond (if indeed images of either of these people were shared at one time).
In Britain the police force has labelled this practice “sextortion”, and has produced and released a special video highlighting the dangers in response to an increasing popularity of the practice. Unsurprisingly the advice to men is to collect all relevant evidence and report the matter to the police.
There is another footnote which is relevant here and this relates to the minister who did not run for public office, but agreed to lend his professional expertise in finance to help build his country. Many of us bemoan the fact that Caribbean politics does not attract more professionals, and this incident helps us to understand why the environment is simply not attractive. A minister of government in St Lucia is paid a salary that is frankly unattractive to most successful professionals like this gentleman who is perhaps now asking whether the sacrifice is worth it.
Prime Minster Chastanet has promised to review the matter and speak to this gentleman’s future in due course. I of course can’t influence his opinion; however, I think he might want to reflect on the reasons for Raymond’s presence in the St Lucian cabinet and ask himself if he (Raymond) is less valuable to the St Lucian Economy now than before. Having answered this question the sordid matter can be left to the courts to adjudicate the legal aspect and the minister’s family to deal with any residual moral questions which are really none of our business.
Peter W. Wickham is a political consultant and a director of Caribbean Development Research Services (CADRES). Email [email protected]
