Keep Patriotism to the fore in Independence Month

We are now into our Month of Independence as we celebrate 45 years since formally reclaiming our national independence. The Committee charged with the responsibility of organizing activities for the month has announced its programme of activities and one would hope that though nothing spectacular appears to be on the agenda, we can be successful in maintaining nationalist fervour. This continues to be a challenge and with partisan election waves beginning to ripple, it becomes harder and harder to put national interests first. The challenge has historical roots in the period leading up to our accession to independent status, especially in the turbulent twelve months directly before October 1979. If we examine the issue carefully, it is fair comment to conclude that there had been no great enthusiasm generated by the government of the day, the administration of Premier Milton Cato, in moving to upgrade our curious status as an “Associate State”. The momentum and advocacy were provided by non-governmental organizations, both social and extra- parliamentary political.

The Parliamentary parties gave a woeful performance for representatives of a people about to reclaim their independence, wrenched from them nearly 200 years before. On the one hand, the Cato government seemed to be more bent on form than substance. Worse, it continued to treat independence in a most partisan manner and to shut the door to any democratic approach. With opposition to its incumbency growing, it could not even concede involving others in the post-volcanic eruption period, and in spite of the major disruption by that event, proceeded stubbornly to move to independence with the society still in a disruptive state. It seemed as though independence was treated as an opportunity to revive the flagging fortunes of the governing party, and elections were held less than two months after independence.

On the other hand, the opposition parties in the House of Assembly, Ebeneezer Joshua’s PPP and the NDP of James Mitchell, could not bring themselves to rise above partisanship, and both ended up boycotting formal constitutional talks and appealing to the colonial power to delay our accession to independence. Even the law courts were tried in futile attempts to delay independence. “No independence under Cato”, and “Elections before independence” were some of the prominent slogans of the backward Opposition. This played into the hands of the government, but a more pressing reality confronted its narrow approach. The more enlightened sections of the society, some of whom had been advocating for independence while the government vacillated, had by then organized themselves into a National Independence Committee which offered to partner with the government into ensuring a national approach to such an important step.

This included popular participation in drawing up a democratic constitution based on our own realities.

This approach was roundly rebuffed, and scorn poured on the coalition which had emerged under the umbrella of the National Independence Committee. Independence was seen as a most useful weapon in winning the next general elections, constitutionally due by March 1980, and the high-handed and narrow approach to independence persisted to the end. It therefore baffles me, and not a few others as well, how Mr. Cato could be regarded in some quarters as “The Father of Independence”. Does “Father” have a different meaning in this context? The Caribbean reality is that many such “Fathers” happened to be in the right place at the right time. Fate was such that very few of the nationalist leaders of the 40s and 50s happened to actually be in power to lead their country into independence either by virtue of fate or local politics.

Our situation was no different. The Labour Party could, by no stretch of the imagination, have been considered an anti-colonial party. In fact, it resolutely opposed the anti-colonialist leader of the day, Ebeneezer Joshua. It had been formed to do precisely that. As the PPP deteriorated and participated in the disastrous “Alliance Government” with Mitchell, 1972/4, Labour won the popular support, leading to a convincing electoral victory in 1974, placing it in the position of Government in the period leading up to independence. The winds of change had by then arrived in the Eastern Caribbean and Cato was in pole position to exploit it. The attitude of Cato’s government both in the 1967/72 period and worse, between 1974 and 1984, undermines any claim that can be made on his behalf for such an exalted position as “National Hero”. Don’t get me wrong, this is not to say that he did not contribute towards the progress of our country and should be appropriately recognized for it. However the opposition towards progressive ideas and the repression against those who were the leading advocates of anti-colonialism and genuine national independence, would make a mockery of the title were it to be bestowed on him. Give Jack his jacket, not the mantle of which he is not worthy.

But back to our upcoming independence. After the neglect of Prime Minister Mitchell, save for the Best Village competition which truly involved the communities and for which Minister Herbie Young was praised, the accession to office of the ULP government in 2001 brought a new fervour to the independence celebrations. People were proud to dress in national colours and display the flags, a new fervour had emerged. Sadly, in spite of the transformational efforts for which the current government must be praised, that fervour is under threat from political partisanship. We must not allow our political choices to undermine our national unity. Place SVG first!

•  Renwick Rose is a Social and Political commentator.