Can the House Opposition Leader Heal Himself?

[dropcap]T[/dropcap]he following is taken from A Higher Loyalty, by the former FBI director James Comey: “It took Fitzgerald three years of litigation to get to a place where he charged, tried, and convicted Libby of making false statements in a federal investigation, perjury, and obstruction of justice. Republican loyalists howled that he was persecuting Libby because prosecutors could never prove the underlying crime: the intentional leaking of a covert agent’s name with prior knowledge of its illegality. Of course, those were the same Republicans who passionately believed that President Bill Clinton’s lies under oath over an affair with an intern simply had to be pursued, because obstruction of justice and perjury strike at the core of our system. Meanwhile, Democrats, who six years earlier attacked the case against Bill Clinton as a silly lie about sex, had discovered in the Libby case that they cared deeply about obstruction of justice crimes—but only when the obstructers were Republicans.”

Obviously, we are not alone lumbered with the spotlighted disease. Sheep will be sheep, wherever they may graze. Which is not to say I believe Philip J. Pierre is a sheep—even though others may think he is, based on the abductive reasoning that if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it probably is a duck.

I was close to the Labour salt in 1997 when newly metamorphosed New Labour determined Julian Hunte had nothing left to take and cleverly maneuvered him out the back door to make room at the head of the table for the party’s ersatz Great White Hope.

I was also in attendance several weeks before the ’97 general elections, at a hush-hush strategy meeting convened at party headquarters on the uppermost floor of the Tom Walcott building on Jeremie Street, Castries, when it seemed the plan was to sacrifice the Castries-East candidate Philip J. Pierre. He had lost to Romanus Lansiquot in 1992, enough reason for the newly acquired SLP’s strategists to conclude the UWP’s candidate invincible. Pointless, then, wasting scarce funds on a hopeless cause. Campaign manager Costello Michel put it this way: “Better to spend the little we have where we have a good chance of winning.” Following an instigated lengthy contrary argument, good sense prevailed. I like to think I helped save the day for my friend who went on to justify my faith when he proved his party’s premier vote catcher. Soon after New Labour took office following the ’97 elections the prime minister, his ego powered by an unprecedented 16-1 victory, declared Pierre “too indecisive” to bear responsibility for the tourism portfolio. He replaced him, if only temporarily, with an altogether untested 21-year-old Menissa Rambally. There would be more insults and humiliations to swallow, among them Frenwell and Grynberg, about which Pierre knew only what he had read in a certain local newspaper and disbelieved.

Still his sense of loyalty to his party—to his party leader!—remained intact, if unappreciated. It is no secret that the real reason Mario Michel cashed in his chips shortly before the 2006 general elections had everything to do with the amendment to the SLP’s constitution for the party leader’s convenience. Whatever were his own personal feelings on the matter, Pierre kept them to himself. As if to allay such fears as could interfere with his leader’s sleep, Pierre took every opportunity to say how proud he was to be not only the prime minister’s deputy but also his party’s second in command. Over and over he appeared on TV to spread the gospel according to such as Barbara Kellerman, a leadership lecturer at Harvard University—albeit misconstrued: that a man who sought to lead should first learn to follow.

In Kellerman’s telling, there’s a lot a person can learn about being a good follower. Good followers, she says, are passionately committed and deeply involved. They actively support a good leader, “one who is effective and ethical.” Good followers read their colleagues, co-workers, customers and other audiences. They understand what motivates them and what upsets them, skills that they can use when they become leaders. Good followers also learn diplomacy skills, like the ability to get along well with others while ignoring differences; for example, working well with a colleague who has different political beliefs.

But good followers are not sheep. They also need to learn to be courageous, says Kellerman. “Good followers can aid the leader when he or she is doing the right thing—but they also must have the courage to stand up to the leader if he or she is doing something wrong.”

I might also throw in the following by Ray Kroc, the American entrepreneur best known for expanding McDonald’s from a local chain to the world’s most profitable restaurant franchise operation: “The quality of a leader is reflected in the standards he set himself.”  Which returns us to Philip J. Pierre, the de jure leader of the House Opposition, who this week delivered a Statement to the Nation, ostensibly inspired by the so-called “healthcare crisis” that some have purposefully associated with the matter of St. Jude.

From his opening line Pierre rendered himself ripe for roasting. “For the past 23 months,” he said, “the prime minister and his cabinet have sent our country into a whirlwind of uncertainty regarding the provision of healthcare, in particular the operations of our two major hospitals: St. Jude in the south and the Owen King-European Union in the north.”

I am inclined to believe Pierre again demonstrated a lack of faith in his own abilities and chose instead to depend on a speechwriter he imagined more talented than himself. Did he mean to say that until 23 months ago the climate had been fine for sellers and buyers of healthcare? That the atmosphere changed abruptly on 6 June 2016 with the arrival of a previously non-existent “whirlwind of uncertainty?” Might this be the same devil whirlwind that awaits investigators into “the suffocating smoke” recently referenced by the nation’s prime minister?

Pierre went on: “During its four and a half years in government the St. Lucia Labour Party’s only intention was to complete the construction and reopening of St. Jude to alleviate the plight of patients at the temporary premises of the George Odlum Stadium. We sourced US$20 million loan from the Taiwanese government, all of which contributed to bringing the hospital close to completion by the year 2016.”

Better late than never, one might say: now we know from the horse’s mouth the last Labour government’s “only intention,” never mind its countless other election promises, was to deliver St. Jude. And while some might reasonably ask wha’ wrong wid dat, the undeniable fact is that the repeatedly promised “state of the art hospital before the end of 2015” still has not materialized. And no one seems ready to say why. The opposition has vowed to go to lengths previously unimagined in its efforts to force the government to carry on regardless from where Pierre and his crew left off in 2016. As for the government, it contends that it would be egregiously irresponsible to continue work on a half-built representation of sub-standard work and millions of dollars unaccountably spent.

As for OK-EU, Pierre revealed on Monday: “The decision was taken in 2002 to construct a new hospital. The St. Lucia Labour Party is aware of the complexities involved in the construction of a new hospital and has never blamed the UWP for not completing the construction of the OK-EU hospital during the years 2006-11 when they were in office.” Nuff said. Conceivably, the same “complexities” apply to St. Jude but how different has been the SLP reaction!

Referencing privatization, Pierre said: “The SLP government had a health plan prepared by health professionals to commission the hospital and were in the final stages of initiating a health-financing plan to allow accessible healthcare to all Saint Lucians.” His party strongly believes “the provision of accessible and affordable public healthcare is the responsibility of government and should be under the control of government.” Alas, Pierre did not say how privatization per se will relieve government of responsibility for the nation’s health. Perhaps more to the point, can any administration, Labour or UWP, legitimately claim it afforded Saint Lucians the healthcare demanded by the UN Declaration of Human Rights?

I was taken off guard by the opposition leader’s shocking   announcement of “recent revelations by our healthcare professionals about unnecessary deaths taking place because of the inadequacy of existing facilities.” I suspect Mr. Pierre meant to say “avoidable”—not “unnecessary deaths.” Nevertheless I hope he has not forgotten the unspeakable horror outside the Soufriere hospital that had resulted after a mother in labor was refused admittance on the basis that no midwife was at the time on the premises. In all events, it would’ve been interesting to hear from Mr. Pierre what action followed the previously unreported “recent” and “unnecessary deaths.” We certainly know what did not happen following the Soufriere horror.

We need not revisit every word of Mr. Pierre’s first National Statement. Those of us who know him well will have realized by now that what came out of his mouth on Monday evening did not originate in his heart. Near the end of his address he said: “I call on all Saint Lucians to put aside their differences and come together to keep pressure on this government within the framework of the law to ensure they provide accessible and affordable healthcare for all of our citizens in the shortest possible time.” Put another way: Do what we failed to do when we had direct responsibility for St. Jude. Not a word, not a word, not a word about the protesting medics whose fees spit on the dream of affordable healthcare for the average citizen and may well be the main reason why so many “poor people are dying.”

Besides, Pierre’s statement is schizophrenic, especially when placed alongside the following: “It is most disturbing that on the matter of healthcare the prime minister and government spokespersons have chosen to communicate to the nation in half-truths and in many cases absolute untruths
and contradictory statements . . . the government is actively engaged in destroying public confidence in healthcare professionals . . . While the government and its surrogates obfuscate, ascribe blame, continue to debate which political party should have completed the hospital, which door or corridor is too small or whether germs can penetrate drywall, people are dying, mothers are losing their new-born babies, families are having anxious moments . . . The prime minister should not continue to brush aside, snub, attack and even label as acts of terrorism genuine concerns expressed from so many quarters of our society . . . The government has not demonstrated that it cares about the people it has been entrusted to represent . . .”

Spoken less like a caring citizen than a campaigning politician with no election in sight. It is my free prescription that Philip J. Pierre spend a little less time stumping bridges to nowhere and concentrate instead on purging himself of toxins he may have inhaled after too many years tailing disaster. I would also recommend he make every effort to avoid the place that in 2009 a “ready to lead again” Kenny Anthony had described as Purgatory!

On Monday Philip Pierre also said: “Healthcare must not be used to score cheap political points. The provision of public healthcare is a challenge for all governments, therefore must be handled with maturity and commitment . . .” Obviously, the toxic exhaust from his former leader never reached the heart of Philip J. Pierre!