To me, patriotism is ‘part and parcel’ of passion

10.OCT.08

Editor: It is a shame that Dr. Byron-Cox has evidently taken offence to my call for his greater involvement in the direction of our beloved nation. But just as I’ve been “set straight” on his political orientation, I will seize this opportunity to add clarity to a couple issues that Dr. Byron-Cox raised.{{more}} First, Dr. Byron-Cox referred to the “grand machinery of our democracy”, but he would first have to prove that St. Vincent is a bona fide democracy – a form of government in which the supreme power is held completely by the people under a free electoral system of two inherent principles. The first principle is that all members of the society have equal access to power and the second that all members enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties. Contrary to these principles, I (and many) observe an uneven distribution of power that invites the abuse of such power, which in turn threatens the very concept of equality in ways that are harmful to a democracy. Further, competitive elections that are not fair substantively or procedurally serve to defeat the foundation of democracy, especially when followed by careless or reckless legislation that reinforces political imbalance. Free speech, due process, freedom of the press, and human rights seem to be endangered entities under current administration.

Second, Dr. Byron-Cox suggested that I would like “everyone who disagrees with one or the other policy of government … to jump up and form a political party or become a politician”; to the contrary, I have only suggested moral and competent persons whose histories prove them worthy of public trust. But Dr. Byron-Cox declares that such a calling is not his, because he is not a power-hungry, arrogant and ultimately self-destructive fool. I concede, and this is precisely why I earmarked him as an individual of political potential, being the opposite of what is wrong with the country. He even suggests that I perhaps retain a “personal grouse” against Ralph. But I merely sustain the same repugnance as when Mitchell ruled as a dictator, and no one deemed it personal then. When power is married to corruption and immorality, it becomes a distinctly troubling affair, a cause for personal concern. To Dr. Byron-Cox, taking personal issue is unbecoming because “politics is a science, not an emotion”. But, for me, patriotism is “part and parcel” of passion. As a patriot, I am passionate about my country and my people. If I am thus labeled emotional, it is a title I hereby embrace.

Third, and finally, Dr. Cox confronts me on what he deems inaction behind the “excuse” of American residence. May I inform Dr. Cox that I have been on the ground repeatedly since ULP came to power, hence my grave dissatisfaction with ULP performance. It is also my unfortunate observation that persons who return from America and offer substantial service in the form of critical intelligence are often rejected because they are perceived to feel superior, but actually simply threaten the status quo (such as Jomo Thomas). Yet, we have the nerve to complain of a “brain drain” when scholars refuse to come home, partly because there is no welcome. My current contribution, which cannot be underestimated, is raising critical consciousness of the masses. Urged by Dr. Byron-Cox to “live my conviction”, suffice it to say it is a smart man who does not telegraph his every move and holds his cards close to his chest. Nonetheless, from pot to kettle, we can rest assured that we are both on the burner, and from frying pan into the fire, as long as the destructive flames of the ULP continue to blaze.

John Smith