Dear Editor,
Whether we consider it a good thing or not in the Caribbean (I include Guyana) we see our women as the custodians of our virtues, our morality. This is why it offends us more when our daughters are found behaving badly as against our sons being guilty of like behaviour. Similarly, we are more offended when female ministers of the government behave badly, than we are when their male counterparts are guilty of similar behaviour or even worse.
But female ministers behaving badly did not start with Minister Lawrence. The problem is that we apparently tend to mostly be offended, speak out, at immoral acts with racial or partisan connotations. How else do we explain our relative silence as a people, when years ago a senior female minister saw it fit to mock the then president Hoyte at a time of his bereavement, claiming he did not cry on the death of his children (her insensitive way of suggesting he was uncaring)? It was our silence on these types of nastiness that allowed for this behaviour to fester. So, while we are right to criticize Minister Lawrence, as a people, we are not innocent in this matter.
Our relative silence on the above matters has taught our younger female politicians that it is acceptable, alright, to mimic the disgusting behaviours of their seniors. As I suggested above those unattended behaviours have festered and become a problem. So, in recent times, we have had a minister visit the residence of the US Ambassador and ‘cuss out’ the ambassador. Yet another female minister has been accused of throwing aside a barricade so as to park her vehicle in, what was/is apparently, a designated no parking area. And now another looks at her party supporters and tells them ‘is only al yuh I giving wuk’ (or words to that effect). But is this increase in female ministers behaving badly only attributable to the young ones mimicking their seniors or our collective silence on such matters? Could there be other explanations? I think so, for example – ambition.
We must note that all of the female ministers I referred to above are very ambitious. Indeed, if allowed, I understand some are considering offering themselves as their party’s nominee for president. Could it be then, that in our patriarchal society these females have noticed that their vulgar male counterparts tend to do well politically? Could it be therefore that they conclude that crudeness equals being macho, and they need to adopt this behaviour to be taken seriously and considered for leadership? But hold, there is a third possibility for consideration, that is – failure to deliver.
This coalition government has known some notable success. On my last visit home, some of these developments were easy to see. For example, the city – still dirty, but not as much as I remember it being. On either side of the Mocha road I noticed new housing schemes, Merriman Mall looked modern and a place to be proud of. However, what was still noticeable is the day-to- day struggle of the working class to make ends meet. Could it be that this obvious failure of the government to, in a significant way, improve the lives of citizens, gave rise to Minister Lawrence’s distasteful comments. Comments intended to convey to supporters ‘keep the faith, is only we care bout you?’
Some years ago, one of the two larger parties, held a campaign meeting in a certain village, I happened to be visiting at the time. Before it commenced I saw a party activist I knew, went over and asked him what would the message be tonight, since the economy was not doing well and unemployment was high. He said to me, ‘we ga fo guh tribal, tell them that things would be worse specifically fo dem, if de opposition get in.’ Was it a similar thinking that gave rise to the minister’s moment of madness – ‘we ga fo guh tribal?’ Perhaps none of the above reasons offered will suffice, perhaps the answer involves a little bit of all the above suggested reasons. Or perhaps there is yet another possibility, and an equally embarrassing one too.
I have noticed, on most occasions that we have had ministers of the government behaving badly, their peers either adopt a position of silence or if forced to address the issue, assure us that the behaviour of the minister does not represent the person they know. That the behaviour is out of character – strange. Dr. Hollis Liverpool – the Mighty Chalkdust, in his calypso ‘Just so’ posits that in Trinidad governments don’t plan, and both government and people do things they feel like, at the moment, they do things “just so.’ Is this what friends of these misbehaving ministers and parliamentarians suggesting? Was Dr. Liverpool singing about all of CARICOM? If so looking at Guyana is it fair to imagine him singing:
A minister visit de US, embassy
she cuss de ambassada, nasty, nasty,
Just so! Just so! Just so!
De chair lady, tell she party
Only you I giving wok,
Suh apply im-me-di-ate-ly,
Just so! ah tell yuh, Just so! Just so!
Come on ladies, morally we have given up on the vast majority of our male politicians, you’re all we have left, you can’t continue letting us down like this – just so!
Yours faithfully,
Claudius Prince
