Politicians live in a different dimension from the rest of us, which is why they are frequently incapable of relating their actions to their words, or of following through on matters of principle. In the end, the ethical stance – or the right thing to do by any definition ‒ always loses out in the politician’s scheme of things to expediency, self-interest, or, on occasion, plain old contumacy. Nowhere was that more evident than on Friday, when the councillors for the Georgetown municipality were sworn in. Citizens must have blinked their eyes in disbelief when they read next morning that a man who has been accused of child molestation is to be one of those who will govern the capital, despite the fact that APNU had said it would withdraw support from him prior to the local government elections.
But there was Mr Winston Harding elatedly hugging his supporters in the City Hall compound, as evidenced by a photograph carried in our edition yesterday, while in a second photo on the same page he could be seen in his council seat addressing himself to Councillor Linda Haley. In fairness to the lady, she looked like a somewhat unwilling party to the conversation, raising her eyes to the ceiling as if she were hoping for divine deliverance from the imposition (or so it appeared).
And as for the gentleman himself, he unabashedly told our reporter that he would not be resigning as a councillor, and that he had not been asked to do so by the APNU+AFC coalition which he represents. Not been asked to resign? Could this really be true? What is President David Granger thinking of?
If politicians have difficulty understanding the meaning of principle, they also have challenges grasping the concept of irony. As we reported yesterday, when Mr Harding came down the stairs of City Hall he was met by a crowd loudly proclaiming their support. “Yes Harding, yes boy. They can’t stop you boy,” our reporter recorded one lady as saying. Many of them were women, and this, coupled with what was said, gave the whole scene something of a déjà vu quality.
Surely the coalition has not forgotten so soon the matter of Dr Bheri Ramsaran’s gross impropriety in relation to a female health activist, and the coterie of female supporters subsequently drafted in to lend him their backing? On that occasion, the parties now comprising the coalition had an entirely different perspective to the one they are adopting now, even though Dr Ramsaran’s behaviour was not as serious (although still serious) as the allegations against Mr Harding.
The thinking behind APNU’s aberrant approach is clear enough – and it is APNU’s approach, rather than the AFC’s. While the coalition of necessity fought Georgetown as a single unit, a large part of the city is old PNC terrain and has mostly remained so. After the two-decade experience with the PPP/C there was a sense that that party should be denied as much space as possible, which is why the voters who did bother to turn out to the polling booth voted for APNU+AFC (for which read PNC), not individuals or newcomers on the block. It was on the tidal surge of the party vote that Mr Harding was swept into office – and, it might be added, Ms Patricia Chase-Green to boot.
As for APNU, it appears to have taken that vote as a carte blanche to operate as it pleases, unencumbered by considerations of principle or, god forbid, promises previously made. It has forgotten all about the democratic posture it has been arguing so assiduously for over the course of the last two decades; it has returned to the old mindset of the PNC (and PPP, for that matter). It does not see itself as in office, but in power, and with that has come the inevitable arrogance as well as contempt for the electorate that has always been so prevalent in this country.
It doesn’t matter how many female backers of Mr Harding APNU rounds up to greet him every time he emerges on the steps of City Hall; it still does not change the fact that his party has done a volte-face from its pre-election stance of denying him support in view of his “alleged behaviour” and “the pattern of accusations over the years.” And it doesn’t matter how much Mr Harding’s appreciative chorus denigrates Red Thread and other social organisations for arguing that it is improper to have him as a councillor; the ‘pattern of accusations’ remains what it is. In other words, his problem (and APNU’s) is not the critics, it is the reality.
But APNU doesn’t care; it doesn’t even remember its assurances of change, its emphasis on youth or any of the other elements in its own pre-poll propaganda. If it did, it would not have excluded all the independents and the PPP from the Finance Committee, or put Ms Patricia Chase-Green as Mayor, a lady who was Deputy Mayor for so long, no one can recall who preceded her.
Prior to the election, voters probably idly thought that Mr Sherod Duncan might become the Mayor; after all he was relatively young, he was a new face, he acquitted himself well at the Theatre Guild debate, and he was one of the few who seemed to know what he was talking about. What many of them probably did not know was that he was from the AFC and not APNU, and was therefore excluded in APNU’s eyes as a contender. As a consequence we’re back to reliance on the old guard, while he is relegated to the deputy-mayorship.
Since the WPA is an alliance partner in APNU that has traditionally adopted a very strong stance on matters such as child molestation, one wonders whether they will be prepared to confront the PNCR-1G on the question of Mr Harding and his place at City Hall. If they do not, then the public will draw the obvious conclusion. Similarly in the case of the AFC.
So what do citizens have to look forward to for the next three years? City government which reflects efficiency, transparency, accountability and a disposition to listen to the voices of residents? The prognostications are not good. As for decency, integrity, probity and honour, those have already been jettisoned; the decision to accept Mr Harding’s presence at the horseshoe table has seen to that.
