Several books have been written that treat politics as theatre with politicians seeking to entertain their audiences even as they attempt to deliver their message. The more talented and experienced know precisely when to heighten the drama, one minute rending the soul, the next eliciting belly laughs with their jokes at a fellow politician’s expense, or their personal recall of a particular incident. The late George Odlum tended to go for drama and wit. Our now governor general liked to dress up to deliver his platform humour.
The politician’s hope is that his audience will go home well entertained but keep in mind his more serious pronouncements. Successful public performances and scripting by politicians are not the work of nincompoops in search of professional calling. It takes a particular talent to affect the emotions of audience, as did the two earlier named politicians.
Around 1972, the dearly departed Hilford Deterville was at his brilliant best on a St. Lucia Forum platform outside then Columbus square as he revisited the history of Saint Lucia and the rest of the Caribbean and the role of the plantocracy, then the dominant class. The large crowd listened in uncommon silence until the speaker mentioned a particular individual whom he referred to as a remnant of that class, and then proceeded to mimic his stuttering. The crowd roared with laughter as Deterville poked fun at this gentleman, normally treated with reverence. The laughter eased the tension for members of the speaker’s audience who may have understood his message too well, and those unable to fully appreciate the night’s history lesson.
You have correctly anticipated me, dear reader, if you perceive that the incident at a UWP public meeting at Soufriere, at which the leader of the party mimicked the non-answers of those asked to explain why they had not kept their promise to deliver both the OKEU and St. Jude hospitals before the end of 2015. The party leader’s impression of a bunch of tongue-tied failures was different in every way from what had transpired outside the square in the early 70s. But drowning men will clutch at straws. Barely was the Soufriere meeting shut down before the opposition leader started crying over his party’s concocted story that Allen Chastanet had mimicked the leader of the opposition’s speech impediment—who stated publicly something to the effect that he preferred to stutter while speaking truth than to perfectly deliver statements that were untrue.
A more astute politician might’ve kept his peace and left it to his supporters to express umbrage! Of course, the generated storm in a tea cup was obviously meant to take the focus away from the Labour Party’s elaborate bluff, from the fact that the government under Kenny Anthony had spent hundreds of thousands of scarce dollars on a lavish naming ceremony when it was unable to pay the cost of a laundry and kitchen at the OKEU. That vicious bluff was among those recalled with deserved sarcasm the other Sunday, not the stuttering of Philip J. Pierre. But the people are not fooled, and good for the prime minister that he has not shifted his focus from the realities of OKEU, St. Jude, IMPACS, Grynberg, the invisible $3 million Lindquist report, among other bluffs.
This takes me to the most recent meeting of the House of Assembly that once again featured a calculated opposition walk-out. MPs are elected to represent their respective constituencies. Ego and other nonsense in an MP’s head ought never to lead him or her to resist the Speaker’s directives. If a member inadvertently calls another a liar and the Speaker asks that the related statement be withdrawn, then it should be. Immediately afterwards, however, an active nimble mind might try a little wit, replete with broad smile. For instance: “Mr. Speaker, I beg to observe that the Member is a stranger to the truth.” I would go so far to say: “If the truth walked into this chamber and slapped his face, he would not recognize it.”
The quality of an MP is seen and appreciated when he or she is on their feet. They must therefore aim to be the best debater and seek at all times to heighten the level of discourse, sharing knowledge in the process. Performances in the House must not be races to the bottom. They must elevate and make the electorate proud to be Saint Lucian. They must educate and enlighten. The prime minister and leader of the opposition must both strive to make the work of the Speaker less onerous, and parliament an interesting place to partake in witty banter and high quality exchanges—in the national interest!
It would do the opposition a world of good to play a more constructive role in parliament by standing their ground regardless how many times they may be tempted to do the predictable. In particular, the leader of the opposition must find arguments to convince his elected members to bare their political cross with patience, humility and aplomb. He may also wish to consider that there are people who depend on him to make things better. In the final analysis he must learn the difference between political theatre and abuse of House privilege. However fantastical some may consider the ambition, he and his team should strive to behave like a government in waiting, not a bunch of losers unable to appreciate the point at which biology and psychology interface at the edges of politics!
