Jeevan A. Robinson
Thursday, October 9, 2014
Which way will Montserrat vote on Thursday, September 11, 2014? 3868 voters are set to cast their votes of 9 each, but how they will vote is a question that is foremost on the minds of every person who has been following proceedings throughout this soon to be concluded elections season.
The choice voters make at the polls will be critical. It will have far reaching implications for the future of the island. It has always been my position that Montserrat is precariously perched at this point in its development. The view is that these elections have come at a time when the island is broaching almost 20 years since the Soufriere Hills volcano destroyed life as normal. Montserrat, prior to this event, stood with the best in the region with regard to social and economic development. There were no hands outstretched to Britain persistently as is currently the case.
As elections loom, those who wish to attain positions of leadership have a task, if elected, to show that they have the fortitude to bring exponential growth to the people of this island.
Have voters heard enough from the 31 candidates to make an informed choice on polling day? Is PDM ready to take the reins from MCAP and run if they were to be elected? Is MCAP’s idea of a dream development plan a sound proposition, or a sleepwalking trance being sold to voters? Are the independent candidates disrupting the process hoping to find favour at the last minute in the assembly of a government?
Montserratians are not a people, it has been said in colloquial circles, which are easily impressed. They demand much and have very high expectations. Are the expectations though for tomorrow’s elections out of the reach of those who have offered themselves?
Let us examine what has to date been some of the offerings on the political platform.
The People’s Democratic Movement (PDM) party took a while to present themselves, but they did so eventually and impressed with their carefully planned style and visual display. It has been clear throughout this campaign season that the PDM have had a plan throughout and have stuck to it. There have been pockets of ridicule along the way, as PDM initially, did not offer much by way of facts or doubling down on how they will advance their strategy for growth. This wasted a lot of time, on top of what some felt was already wasted time in the PDM being “late” in showing themselves to the public.
Radio appearances initially from the PDM failed to flatter as the message that was communicated seemed muddled and unclear. People power the voters were being fed, but in those initial stages of the PDM’s campaign it was unclear what that meant exactly. As they moved on, they narrowed their rhetoric in seeking to explain the foundations of people power as having emanated from their many town hall meetings with voters, and particularly persons in the disaffected communities across Montserrat.
The PDM philosophy it was assumed was grounded in leftist political principles where welfare and dependency were seen to be its pillars. What the PDM however stated as they got more affirmed in their campaign was to show that their idea is not for the creation of a welfare state on Montserrat, but rather for the island to align itself closer towards making proper representation to receive the obligated aid assistance form the UK, even more than they have been receiving these past years. The PDM contends that the MCAP government did not make a case for Montserrat in the most efficient way since they gained power. Monies, they claimed, have come into the island, but have been shared selectively amongst the Premier and his alleged cronies, whilst common persons barely felt the impact of projects that were rampantly taking place around the island. During the MCAP Administration, 2009 to present, both recurrent and capital budgets have increased to $281.2 and $527.4M respectively
The question I pose here is; can development happen without growth? That question is based on the premise that MCAP’s idea is one of infrastructure projects dominating the landscape, but yet still many are crying foul as the impact is not groundbreaking. Development and growth are idealistic but are they synonymous?
The PDM have been raked over the coals with charges of infighting for leadership. This is a question that still haunts them to date. In an interview the Hon Don Romeo was asked, who is in charge of his party? Towards which he emphatically replied it was he.
Is it he? Are voters correct in wanting to know if Hon Romeo will be seeing out his five-year term if elected?
Egoism is an unsurprising characteristic trait of many who put themselves forward for political office. They all feel they are the right ones for the job.
The PDM are to blame in many regards for these conversations to have persisted, for they made a fundamental error in communicating to the public that Hon Romeo was the campaign leader and not the political leader. Then, they made a turn and confirmed he was indeed the latter.
In political communication, to confuse voters is to sow seeds to your detriment. Communication should always be clear, precise and towards a particular aim and function. It is left to be seen if the PDM have done enough to quell this searing concern. They erred in their initial messaging. One wonders if this will hurt them at the polls, or if they have done enough to sway minds. The votes always decide.
Looking at the Movement for Change and Prosperity (MCAP) party it has been a campaign of contrasts for MCAP. They showed their hand as early as May 23, 2014, campaigned for a month with rallies all over the island, then withdrew to the trenches waiting to see what their challengers had in store. Investigations revealed that MCAP, during their hiatus from the rally scene, were conducting house to house visits; phase two of their strategy as configured by their master strategists Premier Meade and Justin “Hero”Cassell.
As the sitting government, MCAP were always going to be under the more intense scrutiny. It is the nature of the political process. Once those seeking office have a record - good or bad - it will be shaken repeatedly.
MCAP’s challenge has been one where the perception existed that they may have started many projects but the effects have not reached the people. The contention from MCAP’s challengers was that cronyism, favouritism and one-manism ran rife throughout MCAP.
Particularly, the focus on Premier Reuben T Meade was stark. His political challengers interestingly saw him as being the main target as it was his governance style that they found abhorrent towards the future progress of Montserrat. But the question must be posed. Is Premier Meade guilty of even half of the things he has been charged with or was he mainly responding to a system in which productivity was minimal and not what the island required to seriously advance all of its development goals and objectives?
It is not honest to say that MCAP have done nothing. One can go around the island and see what they have been doing via infrastructure projects. The issue in MCAP’s communication strategy is that they too, like the PDM party made an error.
In this election MCAP's candidates harped about all they have done, but it was never about what MCAP did or did not do; the projects they did or did not start. It was about the economic hardship felt by a cross-section of the community despite all the projects taking place. This was the issue and the question staring MCAP in the face; are they for all the people or just those who support them? MCAP in many ways it can be said, wrongly framed their ideas in the concept of a dream. The reality those who struggled to make ends meet felt continually and expressed, as one lady stated; “My tough life for me and my children is no damn dream.” Such emotions tell a story.
MCAP and Premier Meade’s greatest challenge in these elections was not to simply show competence in governance. It was not to show that they could speak and negotiate with the best of them internationally and regionally. The challenge was a local one, shaped in the homes of those experiencing hardship and privation; to show that MCAP truly cared and recognised its errors and accepted that many citizens were experiencing real economic pain, despite all the capital projects that MCAP touts as their key achievements.
Can MCAP change is the question on the minds of the middle of the road voters. Are they offering more of the same or are they telling voters how they will change and be better going forward?
Can PDM manage the affairs of Montserrat within the parameters they have been stating or will they realise their ambitions are exuberant if they were to attain office?
Can independent candidates come together with whoever may be selected and be a part of a fruitful governance structure for Montserrat?
The choice for voters is a serious one with critical implications for Montserrat. Either way a choice will be made and the democratic process will ensure a result is delivered.
Jeevan Robinson is Founder & Editor-in-Chief of MNI Alive Media: A global marketing, news & information (MNI) media outlet. He can be reached at jeevan@mnialive.com
