The occasion of the centenary of the birth of our late Prime Minister, Dr Eric Williams, could well see a resurgence of interest in his complex personality, scholarship and pervasive political influence. Revered or reviled, like Banquo's ghost, he simply can't be ignored and I'd be very surprised if there's not some motley crew falling over each other, somewhere from the woodwork, to either cuss or discuss the fellow who's been long gone but not forgotten. One can only hope that he could be spared the indignity of being a reluctant invitee to our local political ramgoat jam session. Some hope, I might add.
However, I suspect, the political contribution and personality, such as they are, will always be of some interest to our political analysts and social scientists of every hue and description, according to their individual lights. Not surprisingly, some of those "assessments" or biographical monographs will inevitably arise from or be prompted by the ostensible motive to hinge the author's personal aspiration to political or other advancement on some embellished or sanitised version of the Williams image. Some efforts will undoubtedly be designed to enhance fortunes as well as reputations. But that goes with the territory, I suppose.
However, for an enigmatic and controversial figure, who so dominated our politics and our lives for such an extended period-with such style, éclat and élan-there's bound to be speculation, founded or unfounded, as to the manner of man that he was. Such speculation is not unlikely to cover a wide spectrum, from unadulterated adulation to iconoclastic demystification and even crude debunking, as has been the lot of charismatic leaders of the past. One imagines that Dr Williams will attract the attention of informed, discerning scholarship no less than that of the vulgar amateurish nonsensical and uninformed.
Be that as it may, it seems a matter of some consequence to attempt to come to grips with the positive as well as negative aspects of Dr Williams's political and intellectual legacy, in order to acquire insights into and/or understanding of some of the problems thereby bequeathed. Who know? We may still be floundering, somewhat, in that legacy. I'm not unaware that there are those who characterise Dr Williams as an aberrant African/French/Creole dominant cultural reflection that manifests itself from time to time in our history. I can't be sure, but I suspect that the Williams I think I know would never have relished the idea of being caricatured as something of an indigenous "African chieftain." It's common knowledge that the Doc was a man of multiple heritage. Jamaican Prime Minster Norman Manley suggested "also multiple personalities" as well.
I leave it to others, so inclined, to develop their own hypotheses on the evidence available to them.
Meanwhile, it may do well to remember that in 1956 Dr Williams made his meteoric entry into local and Caribbean politics, with seemingly impeccable credentials. He was a distinguished Caribbean scholar of international standing, and would have been remembered as such, whether or not he had entered the political arena. There appeared little doubt that he possessed great stamina, remarkable political acumen and instincts, a striking presence, immense personal magnetism and the halo of martyrdom, having been dismissed from the Caribbean Commission. He took his case to the T&T public in the first instance and by extension the then British West Indian public. Our little David and the colonial Goliath was a political narrative that was hard to beat. Some saw a messiah in the making.
Added to his other gifts, he was a spell-binding orator, with his own peculiar style but had the ability to command rapt attention for hours. Some even credited him with being "the man who thunders in a whisper." In fairness, it ought to be pointed out that the Solomons, Mahabirs, Montanos et al were crucial to his political advancement and he initially pursued them relentlessly, for much needed endorsement, but in the course of time they were all deemed dispensable and perhaps even politically disposable. But that's another story that need not now detain us. The only (in my then view) substantial criticism that could have been levelled at him was that he was "green and inexperienced" in practical politics. But few doubted that he had the capacity to learn quickly. He created the distinct impression of a man in a hurry, with a mission and a vision, committed to a more integrated and meaningful Caribbean community. The kind of euphoria that then swept the land can best be gauged by a congratulatory message from a local playwright/actor which read: "O God, de glorious mornin' come."
Now, in retrospect, there appeared to have been an uneasy feeling that he might have "flattered only to deceive." Even his confirmed detractors concede that, had he chosen, he could have brought considerable gifts to bear upon the finding of solutions to contemporary political and social Caribbean problems. Conceivably, he might well have been the victim of too easy and too early political success.
I ask myself, what could have been the possible flaws of intellect and/or character that set the stage for the eventual pathetic, personal disorientation that former associates have been at pains to explain away? The answers are apparently blowing in the wind.