Ascribing labels to the inexplicable loyalty to a politician who is a demonstrable failure and ongoing pariah on the system is to contribute to a complexity that is not.
Splitting in to what perspectives? Contemplating what behavioral dynamics?
These are people who all but revolted for change; crucified every nonconformant to their cause.
They donated, berated, propagated, despite tangible and empirical evidence that he would be disastrous at the polls.
But they stayed the course in an alleged crusade against racism which could have never been the victor with a candidate that is irredeemably handicapped.
And now there is this fortress of crusaders with an interchangeable ‘means justifies the end/end justifies the means’ ideology, that adds and subtracts at both ends of the equation.
Ironically, the manipulation at both ends, to fit a narrative that is as shape-shifting as the math, highlights the very deficits of the Leader they want everyone to see as unblemished.
And this fuels the tent battles that are more entertaining than fatal and rewards a leadership that is as scattershot as the commentary.
The cries for leadership-change roam through the Partnership, often in dissenting pockets.
With the ground carved up, as it reportedly is, the seismic differences in thinking and pursued results attest, daily, to the leadership the crusaders defend – as much as it defines them. It is a codependency that loops and links leadership to anything but.
And here’s why we say that.
We’ve seen a particular MP reporting waste on the Santa Cruz water project . We’re thinking that an organization, founded on politics would have more than a supposition based on appearance, before proffering an indictment.
And it’s not that the fired-back responses are taken as provable refutation.
But, the Party’s counter – documentation on Government’s waste and inactivity would have provably contested claims of progress, which remain unchallenged.
That same MP has reported on a Ministry of Health registration exercise of foreign refugees, who were presenting passports at a
documentation drive.
This, unlike the Santa Cruz sleuthing, is damning on multiple fronts, not the least of which is national healthcare which remains largely inadequate and unavailable for those who cannot afford private care.
Leadership is not a crap shoot, a follow- a -potential- scandal venture, hunting for success.
And the fact that these two exposés come within days of each other, with a fifty percent success rate, suggests less of a studied leadership directive than an individual self-assignment of adventure.
Don’t get us wrong.
With the existing leadership deficit, we’ll take a win when it comes. But we’re not going to pretend that equal parts success and failure is any formula to assert progress and victory.
More so, we’re not going to pretend that this is organization and effective leadership. If anything, it’s the textbook example of the opposite.
And it’s this adhoc, one-off, pattern of operation that makes it difficult for many to, even, feign that leadership is the Operating system in this entity.
Political Leadership mobilizes its primary operators based on knowledge of political terrain, in pursuit of activities contrary to its policy.
The immediate question is what is its policy?
Opposition leadership, through structured operation, keeps an eye on everything the government does to make sure it follows the constitution. It also ‘watchdogs’ economic data to make sure everyone is benefiting from national projects. The derivative question is what is that structured operation?
And, given that the crusaders– always suited up for battle– are now engaging in lethal cross-fire within their ranks, it might be a good time to assess how command and control is, actually, faring with this separation under one umbrella.
Internal factionalism is one measure of poor leadership –failure of command. But let’s look a little deeper into how membership self sabotages and succumbs to intra- party sniping.
The inexplicable loyalty we opened with demonstrates as a refusal to call the Leader a failure. Instead, it sees addressing his inabilities as disrespect, borne of racism.
It expands to “government’s failure to offer anything to discuss”…and cites the Opposition bringing evidence of alleged corruption…
‘evidence‘ and ‘alleged’ zeroing each other out.
And of course, the amen chorus has to be that they, (PNC adversaries), are wicked, stink and dutty. They are ignorant since they don’t know that the Central Exec has to make decisions, punctuated by the exasperated confession that their threshold to “stay within boundaries of decency” is straining at a knot.
The Leader’s announcement of change of 2026 congress to 2027, they may have missed. But blind loyalty includes ignoring facts.
This is the climate of turmoil that the Leader prefers to operate under because, as the equation does, it adds and subtracts at both ends, giving a false sense of computation. The product is stagnation and chaos and the Leader gets to take a bow on both sides.
This only looks clever and deceptive because the fighting factions have abandoned their duty to the civic platform.
It’s an indictment of the intra- political ecosystem that adds some fatuous preference for the Leader whose life’s blood is needing validation.
And this brings us to the poster that generated this inferno of internal enmity… and the factions, in their poisoned spirit of representation, being unaware that they have stopped doing their civic jobs of holding their representative accountable.
The suggestion of new leaders has driven a stake in the hearts of those who clamor for change but despise a challenge to an incompetent leader with an unchangeable record of loss.
Their leader, whose rejection has brought the iconic Party to the brink of decimation, was given a raw deal by every measure of contextual fairness. It was racism. It was cheating. It was disloyalty by those who saw him as an indefensible liability with no business being at the top of the ticket.
Theirs is political scapegoating …but who’s paying attention?
Point is, they are going to defend him because they’ll be admitting to their poor judgment and his inadequacies, if they don’t.
Saving face by saving the leader is the classic trap of loyalty over accountability.
And this brings us back to that selfish, self-imposed ideology we mentioned, that adds and subtracts at both ends of the equation…to give everyone a sense of victory.
If there ever was an analysis of self- defeatism, we think this may be it. Zero -sum really does exist.
The diminution of the political entity, meanwhile, continues with painful regularity, eased, only, by the comical contributions on social media of cross-fire interaction.
Noted how carefully we’ve avoided calling the leader out by name? Noted how delicately we’ve juxtaposed to him the Party’s slow decay and because of him?
It’s to appease those who feel we should hold direct fire because of convoluted thinking that sees our opinion as tied to the person and not the office being desecrated to extinction.
This was never personal. It was always an existential defense of an institution rooted in national history and reverenced by those who celebrate the toil of those who gave to this glory.
Our mission remains that of saving the Party.
We’re now free to carpet bomb with copious innuendo.
We will continue, one word at a time.
