Pointless pointing accusing fingers. The deed is done: A serious blow to the heart of good journalism. In consequence the news business as we knew it until the early 1990s, when the Internet started coming into its own, has transmogrified into our worst Twilight Zone nightmare. But hope must be kept alive: we must continue to believe the associated consequences are not irrevocable, more than might be said at this juncture about the “new strain of coronavirus” that the World Health Organization says has affected thousands in China, and which other not as familiar sources claim is Beijing’s clap-back to Trump trade policy, an accidental unleashing of that country’s latest WMD, and a host of other end-of-times disasters come true. How believable are the reports?
The answer depends on the attitude of readers to certain writers in the establishment media. Or on their affinity with the pseudonymous disseminators of information at once unverifiable and vile. Seconds after it happened, pictures of Kobe Bryant’s helicopter going down in flames were circulating the Internet, all of them later determined fake.
Understand me too quickly, if you must. The above is my introduction to the hitherto unexamined side of the on-going Saint Lucia National Trust-Allen Chastanet brouhaha that in 2018 exploded into the already combustible Castries atmosphere, in the aftermath of a televised fish-market exchange between programmed Trust personnel on the one hand and on the other not highly regarded representatives of a private sector entity intent on establishing a dolphin park in the abruptly sacred vicinity of Pigeon Point. Several hours before the assemblage, the Trust had issued a desperate appeal for new members—an SOS that may have guaranteed the advertised activity a full house, the day’s atmosphere considered. No big surprise that it ended chaotically, the loudest noise coming from stridulating newly baptized environmentalists in the audience.
Not long afterward a massive “people’s march in protest against the caging of mammals” got underway in Castries, fronted by the Trust, with ebullient prancing TV personnel providing carnival-time color commentary, including interviews with suspiciously bug-eyed transuding placard bearers. In strict accordance with the event’s publicized program, the marchers finally commingled in their message tees near the steps of the Castries market, long established as the Labour Party’s principal altar, waiting to hear from well-advertised high-profiled fellow “defenders of the people’s heritage.”
As if to underscore the apolitical nature of the day’s main attraction, the opposition party had set up a few yards from the market a shaded platform with chairs for such as Moses JnBaptiste, Philip J. Pierre, Kenny Anthony and other familiar faces, none especially famous for their demonstrated interest in environmental matters, some in mufti, others flashing election-time paraphernalia. Much of what spewed out of their strategically positioned amplifiers had been heard at countless far smaller SLP rallies, especially their harmonized assessment of the prime minister, Allen Chastanet.
Curiously no one, not even Chastanet’s immediate predecessor, recalled a budget presentation that included the prime minister Kenny Anthony’s enthusiastic endorsement of a proposed dolphin park a few nautical miles from the contentious Pigeon Point location. Neither the Cabinet Conclusion of 16 November 2015 that reflects the government’s complicity with Sandals in the “development of a dolphin recreational facility” here.
But the man who dominated the rally, who snatched the spotlight away from both Kenny Anthony and Philip J. Pierre had never been considered an apostle of the red order. The United Workers Party had famously sent him to Coventry shortly after Chastanet’s election as the organization’s leader. His prediction at the revisited rally, that before Christmas Saint Lucia would have a new prime minister, not to mention that he would “lead the charge,” guaranteed he would forever be synonymous with the Trust’s “save the dolphins” people’s march. Not the former leader of the Saint Lucia Labour Party, not his diffident successor Philip J. Pierre.
That finally Richard Frederick’s prophecy went the way of Kenny Anthony’s 4-lane highway hardly matters. Far more interesting is this: Why did Philip J. Pierre permit the expunged former UWP minister turned verbose TV host—who in 2006 Kenny Anthony famously had declared “the worst prospect facing politics in Saint Lucia”—to so easily outshine him? No matter, Chastanet’s relationship with the National Trust continued to deteriorate.
Shortly before Christmas 2019 the prime minister addressed members with a full house and at least one television crew in attendance. He had notified the Trust well in advance that he would not be taking questions, conceivably because he wished to spare himself the indignity suffered by the earlier mentioned dolphin park entrepreneurs. It was no secret that the prime minister had previously expressed his disapproval of former MP Jeannine Compton-Antoine as a replacement for the Trust director when he went on imminent retirement leave. The decision had not gone down well with the prime minister’s regular detractors, some of whom were conspicuously at his presentation.
There were loud groans and derisive laughter when the prime minister confirmed his disapproval of the Trust’s choice—with the authority of Section 46 of the Saint Lucia National Trust Rules, established in 1984. Before taking his leave he said he expected his relationship with an organization like the Trust would from time to time be antagonistic but not in a personal sense. On the other hand, he implied that the relationship should never be such as would prevent the government from delivering on its promises to the people—on the basis of which his party had been elected. Before exiting the venue he said he’d be more than willing to entertain questions from a Trust delegation, but in a more conducive environment. In the meantime he awaited other suggestions for the position of Trust director.
Earlier this month the government announced it had invited some influential Saint Lucians to serve as goodwill ambassadors for their country, among them decorated chef Nina Compton, Boo Hinkson and Daren Sammy. Additionally, that the government had given them a deadline date by which to respond. (So that there is no misunderstanding: A goodwill ambassador is usually a celebrity, a professional, or a person with a powerful influence in a specific field like sports, arts, entertainment and so on. Unlike the political ambassador, the goodwill ambassador can be considered an official or unofficial representative of an entity to another entity. A goodwill ambassador usually promotes ideals and issues that are secular and apolitical.)
No sooner had Nina Compton received her invitation than she wrote back to say “this is very exciting news. I will review.” But already the government’s detractors had been stoking the fires of dissention, strongly suggesting it would be a terrible betrayal should Nina accept anything from the government that had denied her sister a job for which she was ideally qualified. Why had the government’s representative not held back her announcement until the candidates had agreed to be goodwill ambassadors?, sang the devil’s chorus—as if there could be nothing more outrageous than to expect a Saint Lucian to jump at the opportunity to serve his or her country in the capacity of goodwill ambassador.
A second letter from Nina Compton to the government stated in part: “Please know I consider it an honour to have been selected to serve in this capacity. I have been raised in a family that believes that the social and economic development of our country is the responsibility of all members of the society and that we all can and should contribute to the progress of our country and her people in whatever way we can.” She recalled that she was “first invited to serve as culinary ambassador in 2014,” when Kenny Anthony was prime minister. She was honored to serve then, she wrote, but not now. Albeit with “great regret and sadness,” she was left no choice but to decline the latest invitation.
Why? “Over the years our family has had to endure many challenges while in the service of Saint Lucia,” she explained, “and despite this we have never faltered in that service. In recent times, however, members of my family have had to endure privately and, particularly of late, publicly and unveiled hostility and attacks on their integrity, honesty, ability and unprejudiced commitment to our country—and this from the highest levels of government. Please know that these disparaging and derogatory attacks, and the lengths that have been taken to denigrate, besmirch, and to deny members of my family their ability to also serve our country have brought a great deal of disappointment and have given me cause to reflect.”
If I may be permitted a small digression. Nina’s well publicized letter reminded me of another that read in part: “Your simple act in the ballot box to vote for me is the greatest statement of your loyalty and support. I thank too the SLP family who over the years cast their overwhelming votes of confidence in my leadership. It could not have been easy in the face of lies, slander, and vicious innuendoes that my family and I have had to endure. Some will try to erase the history but ultimately history speaks too loud to ignore.” The preceding was posted on Facebook on 23 May 2018. The writer was Kenny Anthony, recalling his historic victory at the polls on 23 May 1997. So why does it today convey to my senses a message altogether ominous?
If I read Nina Compton’s words correctly, the current prime minister, more specifically, Allen Chastanet, allegedly committed against the family of Sir John Compton such unpardonable acts as would deter her proudest sons and daughters from serving Helen. I have no quarrel with that. I know of no law that would penalize a citizen for turning down an invitation similar to that extended to Nina, for whatever reason, real or invented. But in their desperate need to score a much needed point or two, some have dared to tread where Nina chose, calculatedly, I think, not to go. Determined at whatever cost to make life difficult for the present prime minister, some predictably have put in Nina’s letter words she never wrote. For instance, that she turned down the government’s invitation in specified retaliation to the prime minister’s disapproval of her sister’s appointment as director of the National Trust.
But if that is what Nina had in mind, who would blame her? As we love to remind critics of our most egregious behavior, Nina is only human. And humans can be petty, whether named Allen Chastanet or Nina Compton. I have no bad words for her in her circumstances. I choose instead to put myself in the prime ministerial boots of Allen Chastanet. What would I have done about Jeannine’s appointment?
Well, first I would double-check the authority afforded me by the rules governing the matter. I would consider the candidate’s political record, keeping in mind that only an incorrigible pyromaniac would throw gasoline at a lit candle in his own bedroom. The matter of Jeannine’s qualifications for the position would be of little concern to me. There is ample evidence of her talent, intellectual and otherwise. Nothing on her record suggests she might have a criminal disposition.
Still I would ponder on the possible purpose of Section 46 of the Trust’s rules. Might its drafters have anticipated from the get-go that by its very nature the Trust would likely find itself in conflict with the government that created and sustains it at taxpayer expense? Did the drafters of Section 46 decide, conceivably after intense deliberations, that when Trust and government aspirations collide the final word should reside with the government, responsible as it is for work opportunities, the country’s overall development, security and so on? Who will say for certain that was not what the drafters had in mind when among the rules that govern the Trust they included Section 46?
I repeat: In the best interests of all concerned I, as Allen Chastanet, would seriously consider my relationship with Jeannine—personal and political—and its possible impact on the development of the country I was elected to lead with a majority of five. As recently we heard, Jeannine and Allen have not exchanged friendly words or shared a handshake in years. You get the feeling from this that only a fool would invite them to the same Christmas party, or seat them side by side at a function to mark national unity.
Jeannine’s history with the incumbent party has nearly always been, to say the very least, controversial. It came to a head during her father’s last days, when a trusted MP surreptitiously revealed to a newsman in Saint Lucia what the Compton family considered private details of Sir John’s condition at a New York hospital. Unforgettable is the period when the Stephenson King government declared war against itself: the so-called Super 8 versus the rest. There was the matter of Rufus Bousquet’s dismissal from Sir John’s cabinet.
Have we forgotten the grieving widow’s last words over her husband’s casket? They did not flatter the party he created. As for Jeannine’s time as a UWP run-off candidate and MP, the riveting record is there to be read. More often than not, she echoed in parliament opposition views, to the extent they shamelessly applauded her contributions. Jeannine left no doubt that she and her family were against the erection of a monument in Sir John’s honor, if it meant credit would go to the King administration—of which she was a member.
In Chastanet’s size 14s all of the above would I consider, and much more, before deciding whether or not Jeannine amounted to a risk worth taking—at a time when the Trust appears more in step with the opposition party than with the government’s aspirations, at any rate, in the government’s eyes. An apolitical Trust would certainly have thought a few times before organizing against the day’s government a people’s march that included prominent politicians determined to remove the prime minister ahead of time. And if indeed the organization was caught by surprise, why then has it not dissociated itself from some of the remarks by the campaigning politicians, almost none of them related to the environment?
Speaking of which, in Allen Chastanet’s position I would’ve kept to myself my reasons for giving the thumbs down to Jeannine—until I had no other choice but to reveal them, in which case I would’ve been at my diplomatic best. As Boris Johnson and his American counterpart would vouch, under all the holier than thou out of office pretensions, this is what the true face of politics looks like. It ain’t pretty.
And just in case you’re thinking the current prime minister, by his demonstrated attitude to Jeannine Compton, set a precedent, think again, dear reader. As I say, he was not the first to take advantage of the Trust’s Section 46. But for more of that, read next Saturday’s STAR. A tiny teaser: How many recall the treatment meted out to Saint Lucia’s recently canonized Patron Saint of the Environment, Gabriel Coco Charles, that drove his family after his death to demand in writing that his name not be associated with the Trust? What drove Coco’s survivors to such lengths? What roles did Kenny Anthony and John Compton in their time play in that miserable tale?
Is Nina correct where she suggests in her letter that the current administration handed her family unforgiveable treatment? Was it Allen Chastanet that led an angry mob to their official residence after the prime minister’s wife and children had turned in for the night? Before the police rescued them in her husband’s absence, Mrs Compton told the day’s reporters, she feared she and her young children, including Nina and Jeannine, would be killed. We will also consider the Labour Party’s current relationship with John Compton, at any rate, with his ghost.
One more thing: I’ve always been of the view that how someone chooses to demonstrate love for country can never be up for debate. On the other hand, as Kenny Anthony earlier noted, rewriting history for political purpose is altogether another cup of coffee.
