“Can Potholes save lives? Do paved roads encourage speeding causing accidents and deaths? Watch how sensible people will make this a statement and not a question?”
– Posted by Member of Parliament Denis Kellman on his Facebook page.
DENIS KELLMAN does not mince words. He does salt dem. His words will be preserved for the ages. This particular post caused much salty beef.
The Lord is said to work in mysterious ways. So it could be possible that potholes can save lives. It is like the woman who got up one night to go to the bathroom, just in time to avoid a car crashing through her bedroom. She was overheard telling a neighbour: “Praise Jesus. De Lord know why he gimme a weak bladder.”
It is possible that paved roads encourage speeding. It is also possible that access to running water encourages full bladders. In that case, maybe the Minister responsible for water should tell us how many people may have been injured because dry taps sent them to bed thirsty and they did not get up to pee in time?
Another question comes to mind. Can piling garbage save construction money? Can a pile of garbage in front of your house double as a guard wall? This is some creative reasoning. People used to call it Kellmanomics. Let’s dive into it. Please be aware, though, that there is raw sewage flowing through the waters.
If this were a sincere question, we may have to consider revisiting other famous questions as well. Can a leopard change its spots? What is the sound of one hand clapping? How many chucks would a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck would chuck wood? When Rihanna sang: “Oh nah nah, what’s my name?” maybe Drake should have responded: “Uhhh, Rihanna?”
No, Kellman could not have seriously expected to spark an intellectual discussion on the merits of potholes? Can we give him the benefit of the doubt and assume that he was asking a rhetorical question? A rhetorical question is a question that you ask without expecting an answer. You don’t even really want an answer. Either you are trying to make a point or you think the answer is obvious. Is it obvious to you when my questions are rhetorical? Do I confuse you as much as Kellman does?
He predicted that sensible people would turn the quote into a statement even though he phrased it as a question. We are yet to meet one single sensible individual whose response to the question was: “Hmmm, that’s a good question. Let me think about it.” Instead, the question has ignited a firestorm of criticism over what people assumed the Member of Parliament was trying to state.
Kellman’s prediction was on the money. Sensible people couldn’t believe that it was a serious question he was asking. They assumed that he was trying to make a point: that there is a benefit to potholes. Many sensible people caught a fit.
Does the Minister really feel that potholes save lives the same way the lucky woman’s weak bladder saved hers or that paved roads are a problem? Is he just asking a question? Is simply asking such a question bad enough? Does a rhetorical question which is not a real-real question, require a question mark? Are these questions hurting your head? Don’t study it so hard. It is simple.
To overthink this is a mistake. To underestimate Kellman is also a mistake. He is embedded in the community. His perspective is from the ground level, not from a far removed perch. Even if to many people he often does not make a lot of sense, his constituents seem to believe in him. They vote for him time and time again.
Opening his business during a national shutdown looked like greed and insensitivity to many on the outside. The criticisms were premature. The MP showed a keen eye for the nuances of his community. Sometimes the way he articulates is less than articulate.
He most times seems to think and speak from a narrow focus. He is pointed and deliberate in his intention but his strokes are limited by a cumbersome communication brush. For instance, his comments on the narrow issue of water quality were insensitive to those who have broad issues with water quantity. Maybe this latest question/statement is more clumsily articulated opinion and we have missed what he really means.
To fully understand the situation requires broad perspective. Taken narrowly, Kellman’s communication deficiencies seem like his alone. From a broader perspective they reflect those of his party in general. The even broader perspective is that given the reality of Barbados, the arrogant, inefficient, and often insulting communication of the ruling party may not matter.
Unless you live in St Lucy your opinion on Kellman counts for nil. Unless the Democratic Labour Party has a problem with his utterances he will continue to utter away. Say what you will about him, but he is persistent, loyal to the party and so far he has held on to his seat. The sense an MP makes or does not make on Facebook or anywhere else matters little. What matters is the number of votes on election day.
We would like to think that an election is won on an assessment of the candidates’ perspective on the major issues. But in our system the major issue is how a candidate deals with the voters in their constituency on day-to-day issues. Neither rhetoric nor rhetorical questions count for much in the end. The Government is not made up of who we think can run the country best. It is a collection of individuals who ran successful campaigns, which often depends on how much they spent and how they spent it. Does a Facebook post make much of a difference? Sincere question.
Adrian Green is a creative communications specialist. Email [email protected].
