“Was the prime minister saying the underscored anger and disappointment he sought to justify was “a delicate matter” for private discussion only? Was his invitation to have “a personal conversation” directed at Mr. Speaker or to the MP for Dennery South?
It was an interesting closing statement the prime minister delivered at the end of the House session two weeks ago. It reminded yet again not only of his earlier life as a lecturer but also of his famous martyr complex, defined by a noted analyst as “one of the most destructive behaviors in any relationship.”
For its part, this is how Wikipedia explains the affliction: “A person who desires the feeling of being a martyr for its own sake, seeking out suffering or persecution because it feeds a psychological need.”
Characteristics of a martyr complex include: “The need to be a victim and complain always and relentlessly.” The afflicted “take little initiative in trying to fix any complaint; if any problem is solved, but in a different way from what they proposed, then for them the problem still exists. If any problem is solved, it is only because they complained about it.”
Especially interesting: “To prove their point, they lie and twist facts. They selectively forget, ignore or avoid any facts that may conflict with their point. They resort to name-calling when everything else fails.” Damn renegades!
The following from the prime minister’s closing statement caught my attention: “Allow me a little leeway, Mr. Speaker, because of this procedural issue. There were some remarkable speeches, and for me the presentation of the member for Dennery South was a particularly interesting presentation. I say this because he had the courage to talk about his soul and his spirit—save when he entered the personal domain and raised the issue of anger in parliament . . . I would say to him that I have never ever been ashamed to say publicly that I have learned a lot from my sojourn in opposition and perhaps what he can do, now that he is in the opposition, is to reflect and ask himself what it was that the government he was once a part of did to the opposition that created this anger and disappointment. And perhaps, Mr Speaker, one day we can have a personal conversation on this delicate matter . . .”
Was the prime minister saying the underscored anger and disappointment he sought to justify was a delicate matter for private discussion only? Was his invitation to have “a personal conversation” directed at Mr. Speaker or to the MP for Dennery South?
We may well speculate about what the government may have done before the 2011 elections that evidently had triggered the then opposition leader’s angry reaction. Well, there was the absolutely necessary Ramsahoye investigation, as absolutely necessary as had been the earlier Blom-Cooper commission of inquiry, promised the people during respective election campaigns. If memory serves, Sir John and Vaughan Lewis had not welcomed the coming of Sir Louis Blom-Cooper. Any more than Kenny Anthony had embraced Sir Ramsahoye. But I cannot recall any demonstrations of unbridled anger or associated name-calling by Sir John or Lewis, save, perhaps, when it came time to defend themselves before Blom-Cooper.
Unforgettably, more tears were shed on the occasion than may be seen at most political funerals. Even after they had been cleared (and denied the apology requested in their behalf by the commissioner), the two honorable gentlemen kept their dignified cool. Indeed, in a weird reversal of the usual sequence, Lewis, having beaten his tormentor, had turned around and joined him in the red zone.
Did House Speaker Rosemary Husbands-Mathurin’s famous interpretation of “as soon as convenient” trigger the “anger and disappointment” cited by the prime minister at the closing of last month’s House session? Pointless further speculating. It is enough to know, thanks to his recent confession, that the current prime minister’s behavior throughout his five years as opposition leader was rooted in anger.
But then, what precisely is anger? According to the Roman poet Quintus Horatius Flaccus, perhaps better known as Horace: “Anger is momentary madness, so control your passion or it will control you? When angry, count to ten before you speak; if angry, count to a hundred.”
Does the preceding shed new light on the former opposition leader’s befuddling several walkouts in the middle of always-important sittings of parliament? Does it say something about his persistent name-calling? Does it account for his countless lapses—the ID-law outburst being perhaps one of the more unforgettable?
Consider the following from a renowned psychologist: “Anger is not in itself unhealthy. It is part of our physical makeup and a primitive defense mechanism. It is when anger is uncontrolled that it becomes a negative force with negative consequences.”
To quote another expert: “When people get angry it can come from two types of sources, internal and external. Regardless of which of the two sources (sometimes both), that triggers a person’s anger, the actual emotion itself tends to have its roots anchored somewhere in the person’s psyche. A man who was brought up in an abusive home may become angry as soon as they hear somebody get verbally loud.”
Children of the corn (con?) you bin warned!
