The other side of Milton Cato – National Hero?

Twenty teachers were subsequently dismissed, 60 transferred and the salaries of some were withheld for the month. Among those dismissed were – Sandra Small, Tydel John, Benjamin Williams, Maxford Ashton, Bennie Thompson, Amelia Samuel, Sherman Mars, Norris Bellingy, Timothy Ottley, Lawson Jardine, McLean Laborde, Verrol Small, and Ferdinand Toney.(S.V.UT release, January 6, 1976) There are those who, in attempting to defend the record of Milton Cato, would have us believe that this was a decision taken by the Police and that he was unaware of it. Would you believe that! A Commissioner of Police deciding to fire tear gas canisters into a crowd of workers and on streets packed with school children returning to their homes from school without the sanction of the Prime Minister!

1. INDEPENDENCE 1979

I had made reference earlier to the fear among teachers and public servants that their participation in the discussion leading up to Independence would find them guilty of contravening the 1971 Public Servants Act. The process leading to Independence did not involve the kind of discussions that many felt should have taken place. It was because of this that a Committee- the National Independence Committee was formed under Barrister-at –Law Henry Williams – and an effort made to involve as many people as possible and to present meaningful constitutional proposals rather than accept the ready- made version from England .

The Government of the day did not take kindly to this Committee which involved some of the more conscious and informed Vincentians. The Committee was called “Nincompoops” by the Premier when they requested more time to present proposals for the Draft Constitution. They were invited at the very last hour to be represented at the talks in London but were forced to decline the invitation.

The TREE of February 9, 1979. Argued that Premier Cato had attempted to hog the whole affair and treat it like a familiar affair even though “he has been forced to make gestures here and there to democracy, usually on the prodding of the British Diplomatic Service”. Organisations had been asked to submit proposals but given little time to do so. This is where the National Independence Committee came in with their request for additional time to submit proposals after a period of consultations with the people. It must be remembered too that the original Independence date that the Government was looking at was January 22, the old Discovery Day.

Oscar Allen writing to the National Independence Committee from Diamond on October 24, 1978 summed up the situation as it then existed.

He wrote, “What has our government done between March and October to involve the people and to set new directions? In these past (8) eight months of activity, let us list the important and relevant deeds.

i. In March the House of Assembly agreed to consult with the British Government to advance from Associate Statehood.

ii. In April, the Clerk of the House of Assembly wrote to some

organisations, giving them 2 months to submit ideas for a constitution for Independence

iii. In May, the Government refused to grant further time for sending in constitutional proposals when the SVUT requested it.

iv. In May, when the N.I.C (more than 20 organisations) called for government co-operation on five claims, so as to have wider public involvement, the government a) made a compromise on one matter only (extension of dates) b) ridiculed the N.I.C and its members publicly in the Market Square and in the House of Assembly Budget Debate.

v. In September, the Government, in pure contempt, gave a (2) two hour ultimatum to N.I.C Chairman, Henry Williams to join their delegation leaving for the London Talks. A similar (2) two hour concession was given to opposition parties in the House of Assembly.

V1. Government announced that the monarchist constitution was not open for discussions but included in their new draft. No detailed report has been given on the London Talks. A similar two hour concession was given to opposition parties in the House of Assembly.

In the eight-month period, the clear sign of its neglect of the people and of its inability to govern an independent nation meaningfully can be seen in what the government did not do. No public discussion, no policy paper, no training seminars, no promotion literature, no Party positions, no sectoral plans etc. For the government party, Independence means i.) a slight change in administration of the State ii) a time for ceremony and celebration and iii) an open invitation for overseas investors to plan our economy for us:

The role of the people is to attend the ceremonies and to celebrate.”

I attended some discussions at which Government Ministers were present and remarked then that there was hardly any effort to deal with what Independence would mean to the people of the country. I remember one held at the University Centre at which Hudson Tannis was the Chief Spokesperson. His presentation centred around two matters. Milton Cato had served in the Canadian Army, and we would be able to get foreign assistance from Canada. As an Independent Nation we will become a member of the United Nations and therefore be in a position to seek assistance from members.

The debate in the House was no different. One of the issues of FREEDOM had expressed alarm at the level of the debate and made the point that only two persons made any contribution of any worth, one of them being Hudson Tannis.

Let us therefore not try to glamorise the movement to Independence but see it for what it was. It was certainly no master stroke. It was a missed opportunity for the wide involvement of people. (To be continued)

•  Dr Adrian Fraser is a social commentator and historian