Remove the masks, scallywags

August 20, 2001

Why is everyone sneaking around in the dark? A dear friend, Brenda Dickinison-Dash, a black Canadian, once exclaimed that the one thing she could never understand about West Indian men and women, within the university circuit, was this lack of willingness to openly and explicitly declare their intimate relationships.

No one seemed to wish the world to know with whom they were sleeping! In that context anything was possible. Anybody could be bedding anybody! One never knew the possible "connections" that any individual may or may not possess at any given time, and so communications had to be guarded for fear of being inadvertently offensive.

It is no different with the so-called "politics" of today. People are whispering in the dark. Everything involves "doublespeak". Words mean nothing as well as everything at the same time. No one is sure who is "sleeping" with who politically.

"Cliques" are accusing "cliques" of "cliquism"! "Underminers" are said to be undermining underminers.

Nobody knows who the "Judas" is, yet everybody knows what "Judas" represents and to whom the reference was applied. Even the very "Judas" is now seeking to help the leader find the "Judas" and the "Corbeaux" within the organisation as this person has had a reputation of always assisting the leader who now claims that when he used the word "Judas" he was speaking in general terms.

How is an honest soul to function in a society where everyone lies and continues to lie despite the fact everyone knows that everyone is lying. Look, if we keep on with this abject nonsense and folly then surely Dennis Solomon's projection, that in time to come we may lose the art of communication, could very well come to pass. It would mean having reverted to Naipaul's basic bush and catastrophic barbarism. No one is without blemish in this regard.

People need first and foremost to ask themselves what in fact is a political party and why did they join this or that political party? "Joining" anything has first of all to be an act of maturity and responsibility.

You join a cricket club to focus on the ramifications of the game of cricket. To accomplish this objective or "collective purpose" there must be some common vision of the required "strategy" that is necessary to be developed, deployed and be inculcated by all the players involved.

And finally from game to game depending on the nature and character and abilities of the opponents, special "tactics" have to be utilised relative to different variables. Purpose and strategy would be extended and transformed over periods and epochs of time while tactics would change day by day.

A political party is a team of individuals circumscribed by very similar parameters. There is collective purpose which is the attainment of political power to provide and facilitate the wherewithal to implement agreed policy and programme and vision already outlined in manifestos and party documents.

There is a general strategy that is hammered out in terms of how the party line and vision are to be implemented, the coherent process, that is, and how this is to be imparted to the populace.

Finally, there is the question of how the party intervenes on a daily basis in the various constituencies relative to the demographics and social factors of race, age, sex, occupational activity, class, etc and the varying tactics that have to be developed to engage people in the process of development.

Clearly political parties are not "means" in themselves but they are "means to an end". The "end" is the development of people to the point where "parties" in themselves, as separate concepts, become obsolete. The core purpose of everything is to bring about the demise of its own usefulness.

If one does not comprehend that then one will never comprehend the true nature of this world. This places awesome responsibility on party members and their leaders. A party is neither a secret "lodge" nor a clandestine gang. That is not to say that parties in history have not had at times to employ covert tactics but that has to be determined by objective conditions.

Nevertheless, generally every member has to account for what he/she does as well as doesn't do, what they proclaim and advance publicly and what positions they hold or do not hold. There is no legal prerequisite that requires that any political party be "monolithic" at all times in context of vision, strategy and tactics.

Parties in history have been known to contain within their structures as much as three distinct political tendencies or factions, such as "right-wing", conservative arms, "centrist" arms, and even "left-of-centre" arms. And such factions have been known to wage internal debates with clear definition of political positions with clearly defined leaderships and spokespersons. That is internal democracy at work.

The point is that conflicting ideas must be allowed to gestate if the party itself is to mature and become strong enough to withstand any eventuality.

Secrecy, sarcasm, doublespeak, lies and totalitarian control of people's thought-processes can result in nothing but abject failure and collapse. Hiding the internal conflicts and whispering in the dark incestuously will not get people anywhere.

All the players, major as well as minor ones, must stand now and declare, reveal themselves to the nation and let the ideas and issues contend. That is what politics is all about. It is not about pussyfooting in the dark nor is it about throwing stones while hiding the hand.

Take off your masks, all you scallywags, and release the politics.