LORNE CONFESSES TO NEGLECT AND SACRIFICE OF HIS SUBJECTS BUT . . . IS THERE A GRAIN OF SALT?

Preamble

Was Hon Lorne Theophilus (the Rep) during his contribution to the recent debate on the Estimates of Expenditure 2013/14 “impressive” or was he “trying to impress” is a moot point. Was he, in the pursuit of his political survival, trying to do both is also a moot point. Whatever the case may be, I'm inclined to believe it is more a case of the latter than the former.

Click play to watch:

The Rep - in his obvious attempt to diffuse misconceptions about himself and his performance as the Minister for Tourism - had to be impressive especially in the eyes of those who perceived him to be a young, "uninitiated" minister trying to get his feet wet in his new position. And, at the same time, he might also have tried hard to impress his constituents that he still has something left in his heart for them. But were those enough to win the reprieve he purportedly sought? And can he muster an adequate measure of “believability” to enable him to subsequently retrieve victory from the eyes of the defeat staring at him?

Whatever the answer, we must concede that he scored some points during the Appropriations Bill debate, especially when he gave an account of his stewardship of the Ministry of Tourism. He seemed like a man in charge and on top of things!

In this discussion, I will attempt to provide a snapshot dissection of the Minister’s contribution to the debate on the Estimates of Expenditure and some perspectives thereon. I will wind up by sharing some of my perceptions with you. Please be guided that this article is hardly scientific and may entertain some perspectives that are hardly objective.

Energy levels vs substance

There is an apparent consensus that the Rep’s contribution was filled with energy, aggression and histrionics (HEA) and because of those, he made small dents (especially among the faithful) in his quest for damage control in Choiseul/Saltibus; but I’m not sure that the HEA which characterized his presentation was matched in equal degree by substance, depth and organization to earn the appeal of the more sophisticated intellectual elite among us.

Statement made by Rep on Facebook last year 

In the confessional box

Interestingly, the Rep began his contribution to the debate in a virtual “confessional box” and in a commendably sombre mood. Like the debate of 2012/13, he again opened his "batting" with an apology, a confession to his constituents for his neglect and “sacrifice” of a constituency seemingly under siege. He attributed the loss of his mother (and I deeply empathise with him) and the performance of his broader ministerial duties as contributing factors. It is noteworthy that he has claimed time and time again to have been invariably, unavoidably and frequently displaced from the state to pursue ministerial duties abroad - a rationalisation which he also proffered during the previous Budget debate to justify his absenteeism from the Choiseul/Saltibus constituency.

But did he need to go that far? And more importantly was he “guilty” of misleading himself when he confessed that in the pursuit of his ministerial mandate he was sacrificing “his people” of the Choiseul/Saltibus constituency? Perhaps he was - for the logic to me is quite simple: If you as a politician are guilty of neglecting your constituency, then are you sacrificing yourself or your constituents? To me, the argument of equating neglect of your people with their sacrifice is upside down and non sequitur, especially in political circumstances! 

Although constituents may be perceived as “victims” of absentee representation, they will in the end be the winners. And just as the logic is simple, so is the answer, to wit: In a democracy, the people are the masters and their representatives are only their servants - and it is the masters that can make servants sacrificial lambs and not the reverse.

Re-affirmation of commitment

After the confession, the Rep with an apparent sense of compunction went on to re-affirm his commitment to the constituency and pledged “to turn over a new leaf”. That was a sublime and welcomed disclosure; but will the constituents take that disclosure seriously and accept his promissory note, especially in the context of a similar earlier pronouncements which he did not keep? Only time will tell!

Dynamites and bombs

The sublime confession and offer of the olive branch were brief and didn't seem to last the “suppliance of a minute”. The Rep had hardly got out the political confessional box - and had hardly finished recited his act of contrition - when plunged headlong into a wave of apparently pre-meditated political attacks directed at the Leader of Opposition and former Tourism Minister. That sudden gestalt switch from “melancholy” to “red” effervescent sanguinity was misplaced, and evidently the lousy ‘transition management’ compromised the desired sombre effect of his contrition.

If I were to advise him, I would have told him that it was ill-advised to blast King on issues of the “Olive Branches with thorns” and “SUV Fortunas” in the House; and especially to do so in the context of the subject of hypocrisy! As the old saying goes, "If you live in a glasshouse, don't throw stones."

If the Rep threw stones at King, then he must have thrown a neutron bomb at Chastenet! The Tourism Minister blasted his predecessor for intellectual dishonesty and management failures, claiming that despite Chastenet’s legacy of failures to the industry, that he still had the audacity to dishonestly take ownership of recent successes. Among other things, the Rep cited the $7.2-million guarantee to AA which was not honoured as a major cost-prohibitive failure which took a big bite from last year’s allocations.

The Rep must be commended for his perspectives on the “Boxing in Paradise” experiment. I agree with him that it could have been better reconfigured as promo tool. There was apparently no known coherent, sustainable follow-up plan to market St. Lucia in Latin America after the event.

Highs and lows

The Rep also spoke about strengthening legislation to protect tourist from harassment. That was indeed an excellent policy position!

He needs to do some work with his "flow" and bring it up to speed with it's dynamism and charisma. It looked like that he tended to lose "it" intermittently and sometimes he was nakedly non sequitur; but his fire made up for those incidental errors.

He revealed that his ministry received an allocation of $45 million; and he interpreted that allocation as a vote of confidence in his stewardship of the ministry by the PM. He also reported growth in arrivals ranging from 6-13%. Those figures are commendable, especially in the context of the prevailing economic environment.

One thing was clear throughout his contribution: despite his frontal aggression, he seemed generally to be a happy man! He was probably happy because of his achievements as the Minister for Tourism and the attainment a level of comfort and mastery of his various portfolios; I'm sure he would have been happier if he didn't have to apologise to his constituency for poor and/or absentee representation.

Constituency interventions

CRAFT MAKER FROM MONGOUGE

Throughout his "brilliant" discourse on Tourism, he made no mention of the conceptualization of a single tourism experiment in his constituency. Like Ferdinand Magellan, he proverbially went round the world and (region) and back but never seemed to “set foot” in Choiseul Village during his presentation. So, we continue to remain as far away as possible from the direct participation in tourism. There was no specific mention of the local craft industry. No plan or programme for his family in Cafeiere, or his hardcore support base in Mongouge, or even the fate of the La Fargue Handicraft Centre which over the years have produced so many award-winning creative artists like Irena Alphonse, Francis Josephat and George Gerald. Neither did he make a singular reference to the young budding generation of young artists and craftsmen from Morne Sion and all over Choiseul!

FISHERMEN ON STRIKE FOR THE POND

The Rep was also silent on plans for the Choiseul Fisheries, PROUD in Park Estate and Piaye; and planned interventions in poverty-stricken areas like Park Estate and Derriere Morne.

PORTION OF FIETTE ROAD

Last year, he promised the construction of a “band stand” at Sabwisha but this year we heard nothing about it. We hope and pray this will not be the same barometer for the measurement of the vague pronouncements on road rehabilitation projects in Fiette, Balca and Park Estate. There are also a number of other outstanding critical issues he did not mention like the mini-stadium at La Fargue, management and accountability of monies due to the constituency etc.

CREATIVE TALENTS ABOUND IN CHOISEUL

In short, we expected the Rep to put on the table at least one “brain-child” constituency-specific programme or project that would potentially provide a bond between him and Choiseul/Saltibus. The NICE, STEP, SMILES, YEP and other SSDF/BNTF projects he took credit for are largely national programmes and doing well without his hands-on intervention. He must give consideration to conceptualizing his own legacy for Choiseul/Saltibus. I’m sure the constituency manifesto blueprint can assist him in that regard. 

Winding up: My perceptions

THE VILLAGE CREW TOILING AWAY DURING THE CAMPAIGN

Our rep is confronted with a mountain of challenges at the constituency level and I’m afraid that time may be running out for him. He's probably thinking that he has lots of time left; in politics, the time left may be crucial and may or may not make a difference; but the time elapsed is equally critical. If he devoted a mere 5% of his time and used only 5% of the energy he demonstrated in the House yesterday to represent his constituency, then I'm sure he would be in the winners circle. Despite his claim of effective “ground organization”, many constituents claim that he has been invisible since he won the elections on November 2011. If this is the case, then it is a stunning indictment; and, in that context, it may well be appropriate for Choiseulians to draw from the American Revolution slogan that “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny” and to stamp their own interpretations on it.

No doubt, the Rep’s contribution to the Debate has in my view had a qualitative impact. But my concern is that impact will perhaps be as transient as his commitment to his constituency.

During the campaign, he made a ground-breaking promise that if he became half as much as negligent as his predecessor, then after two years of service, he would voluntarily demit office. Perhaps, it may be the right time to begin to weigh himself against that promise.

Most importantly, it's time for him to get out of confessional box and to get down to the business of the people of Choiseul/Saltibus. I’m sure he's not too young to understand that representation by proxy does not work in this part of the world.

If he conceives a trip overseas as an opportunity to serve his country, then how does he reconcile that with the opportunity to serve his constituency? A good Rep should not only be concerned with the trappings of power; he should make time to be with the people he serves.

---

 [q1]Check this out