A recent lunchtime conversation with friends did not play out in customary fashion. Our regular news spin sessions have always been spirited and intellectual. On the other hand ideological slants were always predictable—until the recalled instance. After kicking around the usual political footballs of healthcare, education, crime and corruption, the conversation took an unexpected turn: to Philip J. Pierre’s leadership of the St. Lucia Labour Party. Imagine my astonishment when an ardent Laborite in the group broke the red line by questioning Mr. Pierre’s ability to lead.
Here was an individual who had vociferously defended Prime Minister Kenny Anthony’s decision to read on TV important sections of the so-called IMPACS report—even before the sitting DPP knew of its existence. The speech had further alienated the maligned police force and unidentified sections of the business community as facilitators of local crime. He wasn’t about to switch allegiance in consequence of Pierre’s leadership but our friend made it quite obvious he had serious concerns about the SLP’s immediate future, concerns shared in degrees by others at our table. Later I wondered whether Pierre’s recent interview on Liberty FM might have something to do with the expressed sentiments. The interviewer was Harvey Cenac, a wannabe Labour election candidate who seemed to bowl full tosses throughout the televised engagement. Cenac began by inviting his guest to reintroduce himself to Saint Lucians after a quarter century in parliament, mainly on the government side.
Finally Pierre said: “So, I come now to the table as leader of the party and leader of the opposition well experienced, and I’ve made the point that I am the most experienced person to vie for the role of prime minister in Saint Lucia’s history. There’s nobody else who has come to become Saint Lucia’s prime minister with the experience that I have. This is a fact. If you go through all the ministries I’ve gone through, all the ministries I’ve worked in, you’ll see my performance.”
The interviewer saw no reason to question Pierre’s review of his own song, which was not surprising considering his own political aspirations. Instead, he offered his guest the opportunity to paint a picture of what Saint Lucia would look like with him as prime minister: “I remember you highlighting one of your goals, you called youth economy . . . Tell me a little more about it.”
“The Youth economy is a revolutionary idea,” Pierre revealed. “Right now young people get some benefits from different areas . . . What you want is a designated part of the economy for the youth. What exactly does that mean? Advice coming from the youth; what the youth want; how the youth want it implemented. So what we want to have is a designated ministry with special areas for the youth: creative industries, music, technology, web design, sports, modeling . . . a dedicated budget, not part of another ministry’s budget; a ministry of the youth economy.”
The acknowledgment at election time of the importance of young people is as new as sunrises in the morning. Politicians have always presented themselves to the electorate as saviors dedicated to setting right the horrors of underrepresentation and the lack of youth empowerment. A draft youth policy of 2000—enacted in 2003—sought to “provide the youth with a voice, equal opportunities and autonomy, with a view to developing their full potential.” This formed the basis of the 2012-2017 Development Plan that focused on activities by the Ministry of Youth Development and Sports. The policy has since been revised—in 2016— and currently is awaiting review and enactment by the government.
Saint Lucia is a signatory to several regional and international youth development plans including the Caricom Youth Development Action Plan and the Commonwealth Plan of Action for Youth Empowerment (PAYE). A meeting was held last year on July 24, at which young people were afforded the opportunity to engage directly with public policy makers and put youth perspectives at the center of the social policy dialogue.
There is currently a ministry responsible for youth development. That ministry has purview over the relevant ancillary responsibilities of equity, social justice, empowerment, sports and local government. There is also a ministry geared toward identifying, developing and supporting the arts (creative industries), which is purposefully linked with tourism. There may be a question as to whether these ministries are adequately funded but there is no issue structurally.
According to the most recent figures of the Central Statistical Office of Saint Lucia, out of a population of 178,696, the number in the youth category is 70,285 (remember that the aforementioned youth policy defines youth as between 10 and 35 years old; 21,267 are below the age of ten and only 24,797 are above the age of 55. So, 91,552 Saint Lucians are below the age of 35. This means more than half the country’s population fall under the “youth” umbrella. Why then the necessity for a ministry concerned specifically with youth matters?
The interview continued with Mr. Pierre predictably lambasting the stewardship of the Chastanet administration, with the usual sprinkling of “vindictive” and “arrogant.” As if to save Pierre from getting lost, the interviewer, obviously very pleased with himself, said: “Go ahead, tell me a little about your vision for Saint Lucia. If Saint Lucia decides to make you the prime minister, to give you that mantle of responsibility in ten years, fifteen years, tell me what you would like to see.”
A poker-faced Pierre envisaged a “calm and less divided Saint Lucia.” He was a little sketchy on the details of how the stated ambition might be achieved. He might’ve done himself a service by explaining how the nation became divided in the first place. The interviewer persisted: “You’ve highlighted accountability more than once in your responses. The word accountability is often used conveniently. What would separate you from the political history?” Pierre returned to reviewing himself: “First of all, I think my past in politics has been honorable . . . I’ve never been involved in any corruption. So I think that I am in the perfect position to lead by example.”
He seemed suddenly to change direction: “There should be structures, laws and facilities that would cause politicians not to get tempted or involved in any corrupted behavior.” Why a law against temptation, which is not a crime? The interviewer did not ask. In any case why hadn’t the “structures, laws and facilities” he now spoke of never enacted in his close to fifteen years as deputy prime minister? Again the interviewer didn’t want to know. Neither did he ask Pierre what prevented him from putting related bills before the House even in opposition. Pierre proceeded to campaign for more pay for parliamentarians: “I don’t believe in the idea that politicians should get paid nothing just because they are politicians.” Recently members of parliament received back-pay of millions of dollars. So much for being “paid nothing.”
Finally Cenac addressed the 800-pound gorilla in the studio: Kenny Anthony. The host recalled the 2004 campaign for U.S. president. “In the history of politics, oftentimes we see men rise to the occasion. I remember when Bill Clinton ended his second term. His vice president came on the scene and drew the line that he was his own man and it cost him because when it came to voting the masses did not give him the credence because he decided to separate himself. Do you embrace some of the ideologies of the former prime minister or do you define yourself as your own man?” (Harvey Cenac must be the world’s most prolix interviewer.)
Mr. Pierre folded his arms on his chest, sighed. “First of all,” he said, “I am my own man. I don’t have to define myself. I will not be like a rat and say that I agree with this and I agree with that. I was in the Cabinet so I take full responsibility for being in the Cabinet,” he said. Pierre alone knows for sure why “rat” is what came to mind when he referenced his years in Cabinet as Kenny Anthony’s deputy.
