Tweet

Op-Ed by James McCall, Former Editor in Chief at the Democrat Newspaper

To begin with, this will not hit some people very well, but I believe that it ought to be said. And, much as I hate to offend any sensitivities, I will say what I deem necessary. I am referring to our first Prime Minister and only living national hero, The Rt. Excellent, Sir Kennedy Alphonse Simmonds.

He served the country with distinction. Initially, as a student of the St. Kitts-Nevis Grammar School, he won the coveted title of Leeward Island Scholar in 1954, whence he proceeded to the University of the West Indies to study medicine. Over time, he specialized as an Anesthetist. I will say, at this juncture, that until I learned a bit more about anesthesia, I held the view that all the anesthetist did was put you to sleep and walk away. On the contrary, however, while the surgeon gets much of the glory from an operation, the real star is the anesthetist who keeps you alive while the surgeon does the slicing and stitching. It is not just that you are asleep because, as happens normally, if you are cut while you are asleep, you would immediately awaken because of the pain. The magic of the anesthetist is that while you are asleep under his/her care, you feel nothing. In fact, there is an aspect of anesthesia that requires you to be awake so that you can respond to certain stimuli; in that way, you can be of assistance to the surgeon. Meanwhile, you feel no pain. This is one of the marvels of the anesthetist.

This is what Dr. Simmonds was skilled at.

Then, he got into politics and, in time, became this country’s fourth premier, following the likes of Robert L. Bradshaw, C. A. Paul Southwell and Lee L. Moore. I will say at this juncture that I disagree with anyone who claims that Bradshaw was the father of our independence. I am old enough to have heard him speak about independence, as this was the dream of practically every Caribbean leader, especially if they were leaders going into the West Indies Federation, an arrangement that lasted from 1958 until 1962. Robert L. Bradshaw was its first and only Minister of Finance.

The Federation fell apart in 1962 and in that same year, Jamaica and TnT gained independence; Guyana and Barbados followed in 1966. In the 10 years between 1973 and 1983, the various territories gained theirs, with SKN being the last to do so. One of Bradshaw’s problems was his inability to address or solve the so-called “Nevis problem”, but this was hammered out between PAM and NRP, following the change of government in 1980, leading to our independence in 1983, with Dr. Simmonds as Prime Minister. Britain was not willing to grant independence if there were still hard feelings and misgivings among the people of Nevis, bearing in mind that similar hard feelings and misgivings were what led to the move by Anguilla in 1967, culminating with an armed insurrection by Anguillans, into St. Kitts on June 10th. As such, while no one would want to deny Bradshaw any mention in that regard, one has to agree that Dr. Simmonds was the one who as leader of the day ensured that we became an independent country.

It was his government that made the bold step of abolishing personal income tax in 1980, which led to significant changes in the physical and economic landscape of SKN. It was at that time when we saw the unprecedented explosion of vehicle ownership in the country. People significantly added to their homes and with those additions, required indoor plumbing instead of continuing to rely on the public baths and standpipes that many of us used. Any water problems that people experience today are directly linked to the increased demand that had its genesis in the early 1980s.

I can go on and on, but I have to get to the end of Dr. Simmond’s honeymoon.

I happen to keep statistics as they relate to our elections. As such, my analysis of the data shows that Dr. Simmonds’ share of the vote started to dip in 1993. Up until 1989, he was clocking almost 60%, but come 1993, that time when we had the inconclusive election, his share went from a high of 59.81% in 1989, to 49.12%. Bear in mind that that was the year following his unexplained sacking of his Deputy PM, Michael Powel. Powell, then formed a political party, supposedly with the express purpose of diluting PAM’s vote, and he did.

In that election, Dr. Simmonds who had polled 1,365 (1980), 1,871 (1984) and 1,576 (1989) was reduced to 1,417, barely edging out Dwyer Astaphan. Powell’s candidate in that constituency was my classmate, Wycliffe John, who pulled in 73 votes. Simmonds’ lead over Dwyer was only 32. One can conclude, therefore, that the writing was on the wall because by the election of 1995, he lost to Dwyer by a whopping 251 votes. He tried again in 2000 and lost by a margin of more than twice the amount he lost by in 1995.

The point is, and in the parlance of the game of cricket, the shine had been knocked off Dr. Simmonds and it was time for him to have receded into the background.

Then came that debacle when Team Unity, by its own hand, was being dismantled. The leaders of PAM and CCM appear to have coalesced and did everything within their power to bring that government to its knees. They appear to have reasoned amongst themselves that if they made enough noise and engaged in the right moves, they could have bumped Timothy Harris out of leadership and one of them would have taken over, but they grossly miscalculated the options that lay at Harris’ disposal. He surprised them by firing them and their cohorts and calling fresh elections which were not constitutionally due for another three years.

PAM and CCM coalesced to fight the election as a unit, seemingly forgetting that if Team Unity was the alternative to Labour, Labour was quite obviously the alternative to Team Unity. I have always said that Labour did not have to do anything to win the election of 2022, because PAM did as much as it possibly could in order to lose. All Labour had to do was to set its house in order and wait, which it did quite effectively.

I will go to my grave believing that one of PAM’s missteps was running Chesley Hamilton in No. 8, knowing full well that in the previous election, he had openly endorsed Labour and, in all likelihood, voted for Labour. I don’t recall Dr. Simmonds condemning that. The other misstep was when Dr. Simmonds, in a statement to the nation, acquiesced with Shawn Richards’ and Mark Brantley’s machinations, claiming that had Richards not done what he did at the time he did it, in three years “…there would [have been] no PAM…”.

As it turns out, by PAM’s own actions, there is still the distinct possibility that there will be no PAM in a short while. This is why PAM’s current leadership is considering an arrangement, being fully cognizant of their shaky position. It tells me, therefore, that Dr. Simmonds’ assessment of the situation was not as well thought out as it could have been, because all he seems to have been afraid of may be unfolding right before his eyes. A bit like Job of old, who the scripture quotes as saying: “…the thing which I greatly feared is come upon me, and that which I was afraid of is come unto me…”

In Dr. Simmonds’ last statement, he suggested that PAM should avoid coalescing with Timothy Harris and to channel its efforts into winning “…all eight seats…” on St. Kitts which, in my humble opinion, is quite laughable at best, because when PAM was in its heyday with him at the helm, the best it did was six seats and as the historical record will show, that heyday lasted from 1984 until 1993, the better part of only one decade. By the next election, in 1995, PAM went from four seats down to only one and lost that one seat in the election of 2000.

The best that PAM has done since 2000, was one seat in 2004, two in 2010 and four in each of 2015 and 2020. Come the election of 2022, they have once again been relegated to a single seat and, as I opined at that point, if an election were held shortly thereafter, that seat would have been gone as well, thanks to Shawn Richards’ hand in dismantling Team Unity.

It is quite possible that Dr. Simmonds is so close to the entity that he so proudly co-founded 60 years ago, that he is unable to have a bird’s eye view or, as some put it, a view from 35,000 feet. It is somewhat akin to being in a game of draughts. Once you are on the board, the plays that observers can see are at times not as obvious to you.

On the other hand, given his exalted status as our only living national hero, it may be time for Dr. Simmonds to lay down the political mantle and let those of the younger generation involve themselves in those battles. In my humble opinion, the more he inserts himself into the partisan politics, the more he erodes his delicate status as an elder statesman in the eyes of the nation. He ought to realize that the country is not the same one he led for 15 years and that it has been 25 years since he was sufficiently relevant to have posed a challenge as a participant in an election. For him to harbour the thought that the current leadership of the party, the people whose fingers are on the pulse and who have their ears to the ground, are in error if they are considering coalescing with Timothy Harris, he is obviously out of touch.

PAM’s leaders have probably concluded that Timothy, as a former Prime Minister, currently carries more weight than Dr. Simmonds did, post 2000 or even 1995, so even if he would personally not like to see PAM join forces with PLP, he is ignoring the possibility that this may be in the best interest of the country, particularly in light of Harris’ unmatched and enviable talent insofar as his handling of the country’s finances is concerned.

At the end of the day, I still have a modicum of respect remaining for Dr. Simmonds and I think that I speak for a certain demographic. It would behoove him to hold on to whatever respectability he has remaining and endeavour not to lose it all by continuing to dabble in partisan politics, which is beneath his status as a national hero.

That said, it is Dr. Simmonds’ inalienable right to do whatever he chooses, even if what he does is not in his best interest.

I rest my case.