Fallacy of the principles of ‘leacock-ism’

Fri Mar 01, 2013

Editor: Some years ago, there was a soca song with a chorus ‘mash up and buy back’, which mimics to an extent, the economic notion “The Broken Window Fallacy”, introduced by economist Henry Hazlitt. Simply, the theory reads “when a person throws a brick through a baker’s window, it may seem to stimulate the economy, because it provides a job for a glazier.” Seen through the lens of what I have termed for debate purposes “leacockism”, it seems that the new principle guiding the New Democratic Party’s (NDP) chances to electoral success will be the irresponsible breaking of the economic windows of St Vincent and the Grenadines.{{more}} Following the 2001 and 2005 electoral defeats, Opposition Leader Hon. Arhnim Eustace had faced strong condemnation from forces within his NDP party for instituting a policy of responsible opposition politics which offered support to government policies that served the best interest of the country. Today, after three successive defeats, it seems that such a guideline has been shelved and the young turks in the party, led by Major St Claire Leacock have declared that a victory for the opposition will require a sacrifice of the party’s responsible political doctrine and as a consequence, the celebration of a period of pain for the Vincentian masses. In essence, it is a call to put the “party before country” as stated recently at the press conference outlining the NDP’s response to the Building and Loan fiasco.

Understandably, the opposition party may feel that twelve years or so in the political wilderness is hard work, but such a position cannot be reversed if the party continues to slight the electorate caution that the NDP appears to be “structurally and organizationally” deficient. If, as Leacock suggests, the party is willing to enter office clawing the coat-tail of an economic depressed St Vincent, of which they would have played a leading role, then governing from broken pieces will make their current dilemma seem like kids’play. This type of gutter politics is often popular with the party base; tit for tat, you hit me and I hit you back. It lacks substance and feeds the political animals at the other end of the radio waves and while this new “leacockism” will place the member of parliament in good stead for upward leadership mobility within his party, it may well cause ire of an increasingly thinking and educated electorate. The problem for ‘leacockism’ is that the vast majority of Vincentians finally understand that politicians, whether ULP or NDP, no longer have all the answers. Further, the electorate slowly has grasped that the social, economic and development winds battering St Vincent and the Grenadines must be understood in a new reality of a “context of awesome contemporary global challenges”. For sure, “all politics is local”, but such a statement was fashioned in a period of a less-globalised and interdependent world and as such localities.

Leacock and others within the NDP and other politically blinded citizens, including those in the ULP, must try to resist the temptation to cause or to celebrate or to champion anarchy, sabotage and failure. The cloud of negativism and defeatism that is ushered over St Vincent and the Grenadines through blogs, Facebook pages, radio and other media will not just disappear with an electoral victory one side or the other. So, when an activist launched a Facebook petition to “Save democracy for $5” when free and fair elections have been characteristic of consecutive administrations, then, the world may laugh at us, considering the plight of those in other regions faced with oppressive regimes. As we exaggerate our own condition, there are those far worse off, whose livelihoods have been hijacked by “casino” market forces, terror cells, armed rebels and entrenched corruption. Even as radio talk show hosts and the small minority engage in political revelry daily, the FAO estimates that one billion people among us are undernourished. It is worrying that there are those in public and private spheres who have decreased their productivity, refused to invest in the country, declined to promote the welfare of all citizens and unprepared to lend a hand in developing our blessed land. Trapped by this “leacockism”, far too many swayed poor people have betted against this country for party’s sake, even as the chief financiers of the NDP and foreigners, through their dollar votes, support the premise of the 2013 budget address, “building a sustainable, resilient economy in challenging times”.

The back page of the February 15th edition of the Searchlight newspaper reads, “NDP MUST SAVE ITSELF” which was attributed to the Central Kingstown MP. But, the question that remains is, “WHO WILL SAVE SVG?” Leacock argues that the moral high ground taken on the NCB débâcle may have caused the party to lose the election. However, this is debatable, since it was the same Leacock who, following the 2010 electoral defeat, called for “fresh legs” within the party’s leadership. Thus, the party having failed to have fresh legs at the top, it is inadvertently on a mission to save themselves and “to hell with the rest of us”, for it is made to appear that “morality and politics are like oil and water”. As the party tries to figure out its path to electoral success, the election results of neighbouring islands may well be educational, particularly the results in St Lucia and Grenada. The Tillman Thomas and Stephenson King administrations found it difficult to repair the damage (windows) done during their long tenure in opposition and as such, suffered one-term defeats. The question for Leacock and others is “is the taste of governance so sweet that you are willing to do anything for just one term in office””

I join those who have expressed shock and horror with the complete breakdown of civility surrounding Building and Loan and other matters of national consequential effects. The result, as one letter writer has suggested, has been to further erode the confidence of shareholders and the general public in the financial health of the association and the economy. And when, as it seems for every problem in the country, vis-à-vis rape allegation, electoral fraud, industrial action, save Nice radio appeal etc, only opposition sympathisers Kay Bacchus-Browne, Junior Bacchus and Cools Vanloo are always in the vanguard, then it is not hard to imagine that we are in for more of the same.

So, as the progressives whereabouts that Dr Adrian Fraser asked for last week in this newspaper remain unknown, ‘leacockism’ seems destined to hold sway. It is high time for more of our citizens to come forward and challenge our leaders to be more responsible. The day when the party faithful will openly challenge leaders or the dynamism of youth arms and youth leaders like that existing in South Africa will happily repel the scourge of political tribalism and doom and gloom politics in this country will be long celebrated. So too, retirees among us have a continued important role to shape our society to fulfil the promise of a better tomorrow for our grandsons and daughters. There are too many 55-year-olds that have turned their back on our communities. Until then, I pray we all look closely around us, and while in our little private spaces, as we shut our eyes at night, ask ourselves “is it worth it?”

Adaiah J Providence-Culzac
cemsvg@gmail.com