Are we still part of the Darkened Theatre Audience?

I believe it was Gordon Lewis, author of the GROWTH OF THE MODERN WEST INDIES who referred to the issue of “the darkened theatre audience”. Our people as they related to the political leaders were like persons sitting in the audience looking at

players on the stage, applauding or even booing but not active participants in the process. This continues, although the growth of communications technology facilitates more participation. We have the use of social media, including radio and are much more willing to comment on the political happenings in the country. But the players are still the politicians whom we elect to office. We are still looking on and only become active participants when we are told it is time to vote. But even then, we seem to fail to understand the power voting gives us. We still subject ourselves to bribes and to ole talk and empty promises that things are going to be better.

Even now that we hear more voices commenting on what is happening, we are more reactive than proactive. Even worse when there is commentary critiquing events and issues our first reaction is to label the commentators who are then identified as supporters of the ruling regime or of the Opposition party, not independent thinkers but merely parrots. But as we approach our 45th year of Independence when we partly broke the colonial bonds there is much to speak about the direction in which our country is going and the state of our democracy, in fact the state of governance. The aborted budget debate speaks volumes. I am of the view that the Speaker who controls the proceedings of the House should have asked the PM to hold on while she gives another three minutes to allow any one on any side of the House to speak, including the PM who was on the floor but suggested that his appointed time to speak was on the following Friday. I am not sure how he arrived at that, but we found ourselves in an unusual situation where the Prime Minister did not speak on his government’s own budget. Many would have been awaiting the presentations of some of the ministers on what was to be expected during the year. And of course, the Opposition members who might have been privy to information not available to the ordinary John Public, and of their critique of the performance of the government.

I was struck by an item on I Witness News on February 2, captioned “Shoulder can’t go above head, PM tells Town Board”. This apparently was not said directly to the Town Board but made publicly through NBC radio. The PM said that he saw it reported that somebody from Town Board said that they were going to throw people out if they didn’t pay. The issue of throwing the people out seemed to have been first reported by SEARCHLIGHT and it was attributed to a letter written by the Warden of the Town Board, Clayton Burgin. The PM in his response questioning who had made such a statement, indicated that Burgin was doing a splendid job. Any letter of that sort coming from the Town Board must have been written by the Warden or had approval of the Warden. The PM stated that at independence they were going to give relief which apparently had not been sorted out as yet. Would the Warden have taken such action without discussing it with higher authorities, especially since he would have been aware of the talk of relief? In any event he obviously thought he was in a position to take such a decision. Why wasn’t the matter discussed first with the Warden rather than being aired on public radio?

There would obviously be consequences. Would others who had been paying promptly continue to do so, or would they wait until the matter of relief was sorted out? If the Warden had discussed this with other members of Town Board, what would be their response? How much confidence or respect would they have for any other instruction issued by the Warden? Until the relief is sorted out what would be the vendors reaction to any member of Town Board attempting to collect fees from them? To emphasize that shoulder can’t go above head is to make a statement or warning reminding others where power really lies. It will in this sense go beyond the Town Board. Would the “shoulders” in other departments of government be prepared to act on a number of issues even if they were entitled to do so? Is all of this a reaction to supporters who might have complained to the PM? Do all actions by the ‘shoulders’ have to await final authorization by the PM?

There are a lot of questions about governance arising from this public statement warning “shoulders” that they can’t go above “head”. Should the average citizen then avoid the “shoulder and go to the head”? What are the implications of all of this?

the