“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” Mark Twain
Politicians never lie! Their words may be distorted, misrepresented, twisted, exaggerated, overstated, understated, or misstated or even taken out of context. Anyone else clearly intended to offend. When Dr Lovell Francis was replaced by Winston “Gypsy” Peters as the candidate for the Moruga/Tableland constituency, his petulant response was “misinterpreted”. Or as Dr Rowley pointed out at the opening of the Curepe interchange, he has made enemies as he was taking on the “establishment”. Even if the Government still uses all the contractors employed by the last administration and the PNM before that–The very same establishment that supported his cause against Manning?
Interestingly, the “establishment” seems to be anyone who is either critical of government policies or has made incisive comments that could be perceived as critical. This is a hallmark of Dr Rowley and his close subordinates. Stuart Young dismissed Reginald Dumas, a former diplomat and head of the public service as “insignificant” when he commented on a “proposed state visit” to China. Those asking for additional information on the visit of Delcy Rodriguez were “purveyors of fake news” or “unpatriotic”. Anyone disagreeing with Finance Minister Imbert on the performance of the economy has been dismissed as irrelevant, even if time has confirmed their evaluation. BPTT’s country head was described as a mere “accountant” after announcing the failure of the last year’s infill drilling programme.
None have been immune. Those critical of Dr Rowley’s mistakes have been called “haters” or accused of having anti-government or opposition agendas. Indeed, like Donald Trump, there seem to be enemies everywhere! Newspaper columnists, radio announcers, former colleagues, even the latest victim of a private WhatsApp rant, the matter-of-fact Gabriel Faria, whose crime has been to point out that both the Government and Opposition are wanting.
Public officials in a democratic state will be criticised. One cannot please everyone. Neither can you fool everyone all the time. But it is important to retain the admiration and support of the base, especially in an election year. Politicians know that their base wants to believe them and will do so despite any evidence to the contrary. The Opposition is accused of squandermania in 2010-15. Yet he is noticeably silent on the recent allegations made on Tobago projects. An “enemy”, like race, is a useful dog whistle that can be invoked to stir up the troops as needed.
Many citizens are aware that the economic outlook is gloomy, and the pandemic has made that outlook worse. The last administration was rejected at the polls so that the current leadership could steer the country in a different direction. Yet this administration has piloted the country using the rear-view mirror, heaping blame and scorn on the last UNC administration rather than telling the country of its efforts to realise Vision 2030. Perhaps the country does not want bad news or to hear things that threaten their lifestyle, their beliefs, or anything that will make them uncomfortable. Character attacks (ad hominem) are a useful distraction.
Discrediting opponents, or their integrity, rather than their argument, is highly effective as it appeals to emotions or prejudices rather than intellect. This approach redirects the listener/follower away from a fact-based conversation in the pursuit of truth. Facts are inconvenient. People like to keep things simple and coherent as this reduces confusion. Labelling people “insignificant”, “unpatriotic”, “haters” or “people with agendas” is useful as it coincides and reinforces our established views of such “critics”.
Elected officials sometimes suffer an affliction that seems difficult to avoid after five years. Many cannot distinguish between the respect for the office they occupy, from the respect due to themselves. As a result, they see themselves as special, self-important and entitled. Those who disagree or are critical or “disrespectful” are therefore legitimate objects of attack, to bully them into silence.
Criticism, where criticism is due, is emblematic of a functioning democracy. Whilst Patrick Manning had his faults, his November 2009 remarks in Parliament describing Dr Rowley have an erringly familiar ring of truth. Le Hunte was abusive, Faria acidly disrespectful. And Dr Rowley, as always, the innocent victim of unprovoked attacks. In a short while, the country will have to make a choice between the least bad of the two alternatives.
