That intriguing perception of human beings in this world, noted by thinkers before Shakespeare, then by Shakespeare about 1603, is still valid in 2013. Human beings have entrances and exits, in this world — in relationships, societies and politics. No human experience, real or imagined, is forever. In everything we have entrances and exits. Despite the hopes some people build and cherish as preachers, teachers, popes, kings and political leaders, the associated auras of status and praise are only for a time. With these in mind, we contemplate Caribbean leadership, and the ongoing drama of craft, anticipation and dreams about where the leadership of St. Kitts-Nevis will go in 2013, and beyond.
It is an unfortunate reality of Caribbean history, but dictatorships and dreams of forever leadership are part of the islands’ story. Haiti still hurts from the shenanigans of leaders such as Henri Christophe. Even as he was moving towards his nineties, and completely blind, Joaquin Balaguer, of the Dominican Republic, was battling to be President of the country — again. The enchantment of leadership brought Compton of St. Lucia back to the political stage where he died. Noticeably, the country moved on without him. Chavez placed his health on the line so that he could be President again in Venezuela. But death overtook him. And, despite his success in defying the US, Fidel Castro was at times a benevolent dictator who directed Cuban politics too long.
Unfortunately, St. Kitts-Nevis has its own story of forever politicians. The size of the islands and their systems of production have shaped and fostered a limiting, dictatorial political system since 1952, when universal suffrage came to the area. Robert Bradshaw left the political stage in 1978. Everyone knew he was dying but, at the same time, plans were afoot to make Bradshaw the first Prime Minister of St. Kitts-Nevis. If those plans were not frustrated by the Anguillians and Nevisians, the history of St. Kitts-Nevis could be different. Southwell died in the office of leader, 1979. Then, up stepped Comrade Lee Moore to the stage. Moore brought a new sense of intimidation, threatening and domination to the islands. He signaled open intent to be a hard task master, and dreams of being a forever leader. Despite the bang with which Moore entered the leadership arena, his exit came early. In an election upset, 1980, the history of St. Kitts-Nevis political leadership was re-written. The baton of leadership passed to Dr. Kennedy Simmonds of the PAM. He led St. Kitts-Nevis to independence in1983. That was despite Simmonds political party’s prior rhetoric opposing independence for St. Kitts-Nevis.
The new leadership did not change the desire of politicians in St. Kitts-Nevis to be forever leaders. Neither did it dissolve all the rancor between the two people. In 1993, like Lee Moore in 1980, rather than accepting the need for change of leadership, Dr. Kennedy Simmonds held on to power, hoping to survive as leader of a minority government. Meanwhile, Premier Vance Amory of Nevis declared himself “Neutral” on the leadership matter. Actually, the citizens were burdened with Dr. Kennedy Simmonds 13 years as Prime Minister. They wanted him out.
The person who pushed most to bring Prime Minister Simmonds’ length of stay in office to an end was Dr. Denzil Douglas, now Prime Minister. Many people still remember that historic, disruptive, political march against Simmonds in Basseterre, 1993. It’s message was, Dr. Simmonds outstayed his time as leader. He had to go. In total, Dr. Simmonds led St. Kitts – Nevis for about 15 years. However, Dr. Douglas is on his 18th year as leader. Now, that too-long sentiment is alive again! Prime Minister Douglas has been in office for three years longer than Simmonds. People are signaling messages to him too. It is time to move on — in this life there are entrances, and there are exits; even in Caribbean politics. In my soon to be published book: Ivor A. Stevens… His Life Times and The Politics of St. Kitts-Nevis, Mr. Stevens decries St. Kitts-Nevis forever political leadership without term-limits. Population size and the interest in politics may create some limitations. But this is the 21st century. There should be little tolerance for Caribbean political leadership that ends only with death. Societies are better educated. There are opportunities for greater involvement in the political process. Now, term-limits vs. dictatorships is a choice Caribbean people have. The politics must change from its false-consciousness and colonial past. Meanwhile, the authority and privileges associated with extended leadership are still deceptive. Caribbean politics must move beyond that time. Too often the people’s freedoms and right to dynamic, people centered governments are limited by selfish leaders. Leaders must stand with the masses — not just the few. This was the goal when universal suffrage came in 1952. Some Caribbean leaders are looking toward the Middle East for quick money. Caribbean people can look there too, for ideas. Middle East people are fed-up! They are changing that selfish, insensitive and forever leadership in their area.
