[dropcap]I[/dropcap]daresay the behaviour of some MPs and their hacks, in and out of Saint Lucia’s parliament, must represent an intellectual feast, even to amateur students of animal behaviour scientists. I claim no such interest, even though I sometimes catch myself comparing the way some humans carry on with the antics of cows and dogs. Which is why I’ve noted that some politicians are happy only when they are unhappy. Animals, on the other hand, live to be cheerful and energetic and protective, whether of their young or of their handlers.
Like some humans, cows hardly sleep at night. They seem unable to discern day from night. They feed by day as by night; as some humans do. They perform bodily functions round the clock, as do humans of a certain age. I have been reliably informed that some humans spend the daylight hours sleeping and awaken at nightfall, presumably to carry out their preferred activities in the dark. Dogs seem to follow a similar pattern. They catnap round the clock and at night stay wide-awake. Why do you suppose there is so much barking going on while you toss and turn in bed? Sleeping dogs don’t bark. Not even in their dreams.
A close observation of the parliament will reveal that like cattle and canines, some parliamentarians seem to lose a sense of time especially when close to a television camera or microphone. These are to MPs, as grass is to cows and dog-chow to canines. When parliamentarians lock horns, as do bulls often, might their motivations be similar? And when a heavyweight MP refers to a regular-size colleague as a poodle, is he actually seeking to pick a presumed safe fight in hopes of being allowed a place closer to his master’s feet? Dogs are very possessive creatures. They will deny another access even when the master isn’t all that friendly with the larger hound. Still, the vexed countenance of the one hurling insults seems a desperate cry for the master’s lost love. That may also help explain the demonstrated anger and hatred during the last election for a certain father and his son. It’s uncanny how close we get to understanding human behaviour when we more closely observe animals.
What is more, there is a religious dimension which seems to emphasize certain animals in bible stories. It appears that those who first recorded God’s words, and others who afterwards translated them into various languages, had a fine sense of humour, unlike so many of our MPs. Perhaps those early writers may have been slow of speech or smaller than average. What other reason could there be for God to choose little boy David as the one to bring Goliath to his knees? Might the moral here be that to an all-knowing God, size does not matter?
The choice of David to rule over Israel has nearly always been my favourite political story from the bible. God had spoken to Samuel and directed him to forget King Saul, to go to the house of Jesse the Bethlehemite, and select one of his sons to be anointed king of Israel. Several sons passed before Samuel and he chose Eliab, one of the seven. But the Lord said to Samuel, “Look not on his countenance or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.” Samuel asked Jesse whether there were any others. Jesse replied that the smallest tended the sheep in the pasture. Samuel asked to send and fetch him. As soon as David arrived, God directed Samuel saying: “Arise, anoint him, for this is he.”
The moral to these bible stories is worth repeating. God does not judge on outward appearances as man does. He judges inwardly; at the heart. Bearing in mind the large number of people on this island that profess Christianity, shouldn’t plus-size politicians take a hint and look more kindly upon small-statured folk, rather than judging them inferior based on their height and size?
In a recent private conversation I remarked to a friend that I had initially supported Hermangild Francis as the UWP candidate for Anse-la-Raye/Canaries constituency, thinking him an easier win for the UWP. I did not know Dominic Fedee all that well, and even though Hermangild and I were not particularly close, his family was known to me and that was my cue. Prior to the polls, certain well known political activists in the Anse-la-Raye constituency assured me that Dominic Fedee would win the seat for UWP. I am wiser after the fact, and I hasten to add that size had nothing to do with my earlier choice.
The long introduction, dear reader, was meant to gently guide you towards the message in Holy Writ as far as the stature of Guy Joseph and Dominic Fedee is concerned. Since these two are fluent speakers both in and out of parliament, I dare not compare them to either Moses or Jeremiah with their biblically recorded speech challenges. The example serves merely to remind us that we fall short of the glory of God when we judge others by size only. This is a good place to add that we should be guided by millennia of distilled wisdom and knowledge filtered through the ages in the Holy Bible. Too many people search for a greater meaning in the simple messages of the good book, rather than embracing the simple morals they impart.
One final thought: If some politicians and their hacks do not believe that the bible is the revealed word of God, shouldn’t they at least try to view it as man’s historical and universal search for enlightenment and a useful life instead of dismissing its simple human stories as false, and refusing to learn from them? We are aware that the Christian bible has been used to institute and strengthen slavery. Shouldn’t MPs who know better be firmer advocates of the truth? What, pray tell, do these agnostic MPs use to guide them spiritually and morally when serving the people who elected them? Shouldn’t these MPs better reflect divine wisdom not to judge other people only by their measurements? Whatever happened to Dr Martin Luther King’s “content of character” yardstick?
