by Colin Hyde
Brother Clinton’s story a few issues back, “Educate the Belizean people and stop copying others”, is stuff for a national debate, the kind of subject we should all weigh in on. His charge that we are a timid people absolutely cannot be ignored, and neither can his plug that we change Parliamentary Democracy for a home form of the Republican system.
I don’t think Brother Clinton is factually wrong when he says, “I realize that the inhabitants of this place, which was known as the Settlement of the Bay of Honduras, were always afraid of their masters, they lived under the order of a master, and with that they grew up and also lived under fear of a God who was going to punish them …”
That’s a whole lot to think about, and for my part I cannot respond in one sit-down. I will start by saying that timid is not always a bad thing. We ought to be timid when what we are doing involves other people’s lives. A man can be almost as brave as he wants to be if he is playing at Evel Knievel, but when it comes to other people’s lives, men need to check themselves. Saddam Hussein is one leader who should have been timid; if he was he wouldn’t have played that horrifically poor hand that led to many deaths and the destruction of much of physical Iraq.
Human beings live at the edge of being overwhelmed by the animal self. And they are not herbivores. There are many Belizeans who could never fit the description, timid. Okay, we know the Jamaicans aren’t timid, the Barbadians aren’t timid, and the Guatemalans in their oligarchy aren’t timid. None of them share our reality. The people of Belize will sacrifice much to be a tranquil haven. But like everywhere else, we have no shortage of individuals who will “grab balls”, and that’s okay as long as they don’t get too big in leadership.
I like to think our people whom we call timid, that they would go the extra yard for peace. Maybe that’s because we know how easily that is lost, and how hard it is to get back. The discussion must be extended to the people who came — the Mestizos, the Arabians, and the Mennonites, were all looking for peace. The Salvadorans, and the Guatemalans, and the Hondurans, the vast majority of them came here looking for peace. The indentured Indians and Chinese who came, they could have stayed home and fought governments to improve their caste, place, but they came here looking for peace.
The Belizean people try hard to be peaceful. I give George Price maybe the top prize for that. But my sense is that he would have acquiesced. Philip Goldson said peace yes, but no quarter.
The comment, “… they always believed they were going to be invaded by Guatemala, and they grew up thinking that England, their master, was always going to defend them. Why? Because every time Guatemala raised its voice or tried to enter this place, England sent its ships or its harrier, and the people thought they were defending them … What England was defending was the wealth of the land, the natural resources. That’s what they were defending, not the people.”
So, the British sent the harriers to defend the non-human resources, not the people. But how unusual is that? How do you explain all these wars and embargos the Americans have initiated, other than fighting for resources? You can’t separate the people from the resources. Economics, bread, is the first need of animals. In Fiddler on the Roof, Hodel said to Perchik that she believed he was asking her to marry him, and insisted that affection comes first, and Perchik replied: “I personally am in favor of such a socioeconomic relationship.”
The story is that the British don’t have any affection for the Belizean people. I don’t see the comment being that relevant. Really, love doesn’t have all that much to do with it. No man is an island. It’s about alliances, it’s about resources, it’s about face, yes, it’s about the people, and it’s about being practical. Belize fought alongside the British in the world wars. We are an independent nation, with the king as titular head. On the matter of defense, is Belize in a stronger position with the king as head of state or with a local president as head of state? I would say the former, absolutely yes!
Continuing the assault, Brother Clinton said, “nowadays I hear on the radio — when they have their talk show — people speak about how Guatemala will never be able to invade because they are members of the Commonwealth of Nations, or because England is going to defend them, and now they believe that the Gringos are going to defend them.”
Continuing the defense, everyone has allies. When the great Cuba was threatened by the US, they ran to the USSR. But now the Russians have embarrassed themselves with this war, it puts Cuba in a precarious situation. Hmm, the Gringos, we’ll need another page for them.
On our system of government, Brother Clinton says, “They fill their mouths calling themselves democratic, but in reality, the only democratic thing about this country is when citizens have the right to elect area representatives of constituencies. And the one who gains the majority of area representatives, forms the government. And the leader of the political party automatically becomes the prime minister. That’s all! There is nothing democratic about that, other than electing an area representative.”
I think Brother Clinton is wrong to say there is nothing democratic about our system, “other than electing an area representative”, that when he suggests that area representatives should “represent the area or the citizens of their constituency, nothing more” he is ignoring how the world works, and that he is jumping out a frying pan when he says “the prime minister should be elected by the people, instead of being an area representative.”
In many ways, political systems are the same. The republican system is infested with lobbyists, people who live at the doorsteps of their president, with gifts to exchange for favors for their private projects and deals. In Belize, area representatives lobby for their areas, and to that end they engage in a lot of quid pro quo. An interesting story this week was the decision by Cabinet to roll out NHI to Orange Walk ahead of Cayo. You bet there was lobbying in Cabinet over that. The PM is from OW and the Minister of Health is from OW. Would the rollout have been in Cayo first if the Minister of Health was still Chebat?
I don’t see the virtue of a one-man show over Cabinet rule. People like to talk about no political leader here ever going to jail, while of recent (only of recent) we have heard of leaders in republics around us having to go to court. More often, suspect leaders around us abscond before the law can get near them. I wouldn’t vote fu no one man show! When things go wrong here it is the work of many. The entire kit and caboodle have to say yes to the criminal activity. A band of crooks is easier to deal with than a single despot, because in the former you could have a breakaway G-7.
Aha, the political leader who should be stomping hardest for us to remain a Parliamentary Democracy is the present leader of the UDP. In a presidential election, even if Ashcroft gave him the entire billion, he still wouldn’t get over. But an unpopular leader can remain in the saddle of an opposition party, for a while. Do not underestimate the influence of the leader of a political party in our system; it can extend far beyond the division they’re running in. In the George Price heyday, it was said that if the party put a broomstick to run in some divisions, they would win. The leader could be a burden, or a neutral factor, and in Price’s case, a huge support to lean on.
Okay, that’s it for now.