The misconceptions of the 1998 ‘Road Block Revolution’

18.FEB.11

Editor: At the conclusion of the general elections held on 13th December, 2010, I was very relieved because I thought the perpetual state of politics that had existed in the country since 1998 would finally be put to rest. However, lo and behold, two (2) months after the general elections, the political madness continues.{{more}}

What is the cause of this political madness that seems to have enveloped S.V.G? For too many followers of the N.D.P, the answer to this question is ‘Ralph’. In fact, recently I had a heated argument with a number of individuals when they sought to blame the P.M for the road block revolution that transpired ten years ago; hence, my reason for writing this article.

Contrary to what many people may think, Ralph Gonsalves was not the initiator of the road block revolution ten years ago; and anybody who says otherwise is simply lacking the facts or they are a stranger to the truth. What transpired ten years ago was initiated by the people because of the arrogance displayed by the government in power at that time and Ralph Gonsalves simply capitalized on that situation by giving his support to the demonstrators.

Today, we are seeing a demonstration that is being led and encouraged by the Opposition Leader. In my opinion, this is wrong, and no aspiring Prime Minister should encourage open mutiny in a country, unless that country is being governed under extreme conditions; and the determinant of those conditions should not be the Opposition Leader but the general populace of that country.

Mr. Eustace and other die-hard N.D.P supporters might want to express the view that we are presently living under extreme conditions. however, I beg to differ. Is the passing of the Criminal Procedure Amendment Bill an extreme condition? I think not. Is it enough to encourage open demonstration by an aspiring Prime Minister? I also think not. Mr. Eustace as an economist and as someone who was intimately involved with the Mitchell administration will know the negative message which will be sent to the outside world to potential investors if a country is perceived as being unstable; therefore, he should desist from sending such a message.

The Prime Minister also needs to be cognizant of the fact that although most right thinking Vincentians are aware of the mischief the passing of the bill is trying to prevent, there are still some Vincentians with genuine concerns. One of those concerns has to do with how those persons perceive the dispensation of justice. Generally speaking, the court is seen as the institution which dispenses justice, and although the passing of the bill does not change that fact, in some people’s opinion, it frustrates it. If that is the case, naturally those persons will seek clarification. However, in their search for clarification, they must not allow themselves to be a political tool for any party, because in the end, we are not N.D.P or U.L.P. We are VINCENTIANS.

Leroy James