The ongoing SOS calls for unification by the APNU arm of the Opposition would be a skit for the ‘no-big-ting’ of back -in- the -day Theater Guild, if it were not so, tragically, belittling.
Seriously.
Between the Parliamentary and Party Leaders, SOS flares have outnumbered what the Kingston Light House was capable of answering in its hey day. Somehow, theirs is the opinion that a unified Opposition is a good strategic offensive.
But coming off of the beat down it suffered less than a year ago- when it was the only Opposition game in town – it is curious to understand how it intends to convince others of its political prowess, when all of its dead entrails are still pulling on its operational strings.
We understand how it could be lonely in the basement. But, its résumé identifies with its failure in many ways.
Factually, when it was the only Opposition, the PNC’s leadership couldn’t point to a single accomplishment – let alone a ground- breaking one over APNU’s previous ’21-’25 tenure.
This one, in our opinion, was always the bench mark for counter productive walkouts. After citing some genuinely critical issues, these truant politicians walked out, literally.
A political walk out is based on substance, has a sensible explanation with traceable facts. Other than that, youre just going home -early- in flagrant disservice to constituents.
Dramatic visual is affirmation to no plan at all. We say this to buttress the fact that there was never presentation of studied alternative; preceding or succeeding any walkout. Incivility and acrimony was go- to currency. Norton had nothing more in his ‘idea’ arsenal to spend. More flouncing than fixing.
There’s a respect factor that follows politicians who do the hard work of proposal evaluation and negotiating a presentation. And if that fails, publishing the effort in national news organs, or on their social media carriers, makes a public register of the attempt.
Recording effort affirms an agenda and institutionalizes a point of view. Jaw grinding and name calling is bankrupt politicking…a cheap self – service that carries indelible stain. With that as the inheritance, the SOS signalers think being brusque shows strength and that demanding conversation is viable political strategy.
But weak and demanding is a political oxymoron.
For those of us who were not taught at the ‘Political Scientist’ level, we learned a couple of things as lay people.
We learned terms like ‘Leverage’ and ‘Quiet Power’.
Zero leverage…like loss of 10 APNU seats and a potential 9 from an AFC Coalition, requires a structural overhaul for any leverage to be ascribed to what is left. There has been neither visible nor functional platform overhaul with this basement -based Opposition. There has been no re-branding, either.
Methods of selecting MP’s remain in the hands of the leader who led the Party to endangered status. And, said Leader still speaks publicly on behalf of the Party he all but physically assaulted.
How in the name of political jesus they expect other parties to see them as functionaries; leaders in any effort to act as a resolute and stalwart unit– is beyond expectation and ambition.
Demanding to be heard – persistently and repeatedly – is a position of both hubris and weakness.
That’s what we learned about quiet power. It’s the exact opposite ability to bring people to your corner through the calm confidence of earned credibility. Loud and unyielding is desperation levels too low to be scored. No body wants to team up with a leader that’s too hyper to self- control.
And the cheapest form of relevance, APNU, is visibility by association. Clinging to proximity instead of building genuine capability is a hallmark of weak political strategy – another thing we learned at our level.
If they would listen, we’d tell APNU that demonstrating capability, and not appending it, is more of character development than not.
Then there is Trust.
Trust is what anyone outside of their 77K voters would need to, even, consider them for leadership, let alone viability. That’s the baseline currency of political legitimacy. And, forming a Coalition would need approval, not only of the Opposition Parties’ politicians, but their constituents.
Yes.
These politicians may have respect for the sentiments of the constituents who voted them in. They may have reverence for the duties those constituents entrusted them with. They may be committed to effecting their Party’s ideology and having it serve their constituents and not their Leader. Representative democracy may still be their goal.
So, APNU, with its tyrannical leader who called on Desmond Hoyte to leave after he lost 5 seats to Janet, may be seen, by other Opposition Parties, as despotic dead weight that will damage their brand by mere proximity, let alone collaboration.
And you, SOS signalers, are coming from a place of weakness.
Not once, has any of you had the commitment to constituents to demand that your tyrant resigns. Instead, you pout in your corners, bemoan his presence in whispers and allow him, like a skunk, to spray you and the Party with his defensive stench.
Like many of us, the Opposition Parties you’re calling on to form a united front are asking- per conversation– why have you been so paralyzed by this resident interloper. Why hasn’t there been a show of care for Party continuity by those of you who call yourselves the Solid 12? What are you afraid of, 12, having him withdraw your appointment?
If that is so, then, each one of you has demonstrated a singular incapability to strategize. If he fires one then he fires all. He’s incapable of doing that.
As we’ve said before, his biggest fear is failure… even the perception of it. His first job is always to protect the faux portfolio of political savvy that he has pieced together through bluff and bloviation. The party, to him, has always been a conduit to his destination– ‘Self Aggrandizement’.
If this – fear of losing your MP status –has immobilized your collective better thinking then it’s understandable why your SOS’s go unanswered by other members of the Opposition.
We empathize with you, to the extent that the PNC has historically been the Party of experience and expertise. It was, partially, this combination that made them the preferred political entity to receive the scrolls of Independence on behalf of the nation.
We lament the abandonment of rigor that was the inheritance of its operations manual. The decay became ever creeping. Self- interest hijacked internal elections operations. Committing an internal heist of the entire operation was simply waiting for the right reprobate.
Now here we are, running behind fledglings to reconstitute; to reassert a legacy whose tatters may be rebuilt but not by taking damage control to your competitors.
That’s your job, Solid 12. Rebuilding is an offensive stance, a strategic undertaking with a defined goal for structural reform. The demise of the PNC is your crisis. Your missteps, Solid 12, have diminished your capability.
Just for the record, submitting to the leadership of a proven loser is not a calling card. Frantic SOS-ing to others and demanding their coalition, even if sensible, often alienates potential partners. They view the call as an act of desperation, rather than viable strategy.
You have to show some political spine if you want to be seen as a worthy partner. And with everything comes a modicum of humility. Fusion politics is great strategy but not because you call for it from your deposed platform, with its hanging bannister.
You have to convince the Parties you’re signaling that you are not about to bring them down with your shift in political fortunes. You have to drop your ideological purity, focus on economic unity, frame policies as national goals.
You have to show that your core alignment is intact against the Rulers – that partnership with you is still a net positive.
And, reassurance requires swift, strategic, and transparent actions that prove that your stability outweighs your current political volatility. You are yet to renounce your Leader who brought you to this posture…who squandered your political inheritance. Do you think that makes you viable for partnership?
Another thing we learned at the lower political level was loyalty to past failure prevents future success…to paraphrase.
Chasing after Coalition formation is not an entitlement but a deft strategy that is borne of finesse and finely tuned diplomacy. Making public calls in front of every camera doesn’t embarrass other members but shames you.
That’s another thing we learned at our lower level… the critical dynamic in political communication; the fine line between strategic coalition building and public posturing.
Even so, we’re not sure that you really want a coalition, given all the fundamental errors in your overtures, coming from your team that has more expertise and experience than any other member of the Opposition.
And that’s another thing we learned at our level.
When a qualified entity makes basic mistakes during critical outreach, it looks like a lack of genuine interest or effort. Performance versus Purposeful. Serious versus Show.
This forces us to look at the situation objectively, since actions matter more than effort.
And here’s why.
In negotiations, actions refer to concrete, meticulously analyzed strategy to secure tangible if not negotiable results. Your team has that kind of expertise. So why the flagrant half stepping? Why the bumbling?
Here’s, yet, another thing we learned at our lower level. Passive Execution. When you prepare more for counter offers i.e rejection – you fail to prepare a driving sales pitch.
Negotiating under the looming presence of your now self- appointed Chairman, Norton, understandably invokes fear of him becoming part of your desired coalition. His rejection rate is a feared contagion, an enduring Bubonic plague.
The Collective Opposition has 29 Seats to the Ruler’s 36. A seven seat disadvantage would demand an alliance built on complementary strengths. Parsing proposals, analyzing them for validity, then offering counter proposals, is the antidote to seat deficit. It’s an efficiency based formula.
Skillful debate to expose disingenuous proposals are both impactful and memorable. So is noisy, remonstrative exchange that looks more like brawling than constructive submission in a capacity and environment that are both revered and respectable. This time, though, in the negative.
Another thing we learned was conflict allocation. It’s hard to claim service as a connecting highway when people live under the connecting bridge. Yes, public policy, too, is your remit.
So, here are our parting words.
We’re in no way suggesting that we are right.
But we’ve been reading why you’ve been wrong, from both your Party and the Opposition members who are ignoring you.
And what we’ve offered, by way of Opinion Editorial, is a good blue print, we’re thinking.
Whatever your decision, the course is yours to chart.
