The Tribune

ON the morning I write this, I recognise, in my favourite western-area coffee shop, and seated snugly in the corner but in view of the door, the former Prime Minister Hubert Ingraham, a character missing from the dramedy cast profiled here, but looking very well-rested in his retirement. Truly, we can hardly expect him to look anything other than refreshed, as life on any one of our islands but New Providence is presently much better for anyone’s physical and mental health.

Ingraham speaks quietly to his companion(s), and I conjure a thought to go over and ask him what he thinks of the Andre Rollins debacle and whether or not the young politician reminds him of himself in his early years of politics. Further, what does he envision Rollins’ fate to be after the many rounds of shots he’s fired at his own party? And what of his political future?

But Mr Ingraham is so calm in his private, semi-family time, that I feel as though to approach him now would be a real invasion of privacy, and I leave with a nod, saving my question for the next chance encounter.

I am really eager to know what the veterans on the outside looking in think about today’s cadre of Bahamian parliamentarians, and the job that they’re doing as a whole and in their respective roles as the people’s representatives.

Am I the only one disgusted by the fact that these men (and women) are wasting my country’s strained resources of time and money to host their ego competitions on a weekly basis? For all their ridiculous antics in parliament, it becomes clearer with each occurrence why we cannot succeed at turning our country away from its downward spiral.

To their credit and for the most part, the women in parliament say their piece, make their points, and move on. But the men have an ongoing pissing competition, measuring their special appendages or the distances over which those appendages can water the parking lot. They entertain so well that we can almost imagine them ripping the sleeves off their shirts, tying them around their foreheads and marking war paint across their cheekbones. But there’s no time for Rambo here. There’s life-or-death work to be done. And these men are not doing it well or fast enough.

Week after week, spectacle after spectacle, they sit in their seats, whenever they can find the time to show up, and they talk in splinter conversations; make up clubhouse rules as they go along; play around with their smart phones, tablets and laptops; chew gum; pop in and out for smoke breaks; all sorts of things other than actually participating fully, each time they are present, in the business of effectively running this country.

What did they do before mobile devices were created? What was the level of efficiency realised in government before the invention of modern communications tools, when there was no real opportunity to escape paying attention to every minute of debate on the floor of the House of Assembly? Really, I suppose back then the only other alternative to paying attention was napping.

At least now there is enough action to keep them all awake.

In the latest instalment of Rollins’ Revolts, or Rollins’ Rebellion – you take your pick – we meet ...

Andre Rollins:

Our lead character. A young man just arrogant enough to be disliked by those who see him as a threat to their political agendas, and just meek enough to be appreciated by the people as a freedom fighter. He is now known for baiting all the fish in the political sea, as well as the media, and never fails to carry the public discussion in the direction he wants it to go, by engaging the Fourth and Fifth Estates to his own advantage.

His outbursts are, so far, well-timed enough to solicit public attention. At the least, there must be method to his madness; at most, a larger plan?

I think, much more than the meanings of the words Rollins might actually say when he speaks, the members of his party should be more concerned about his ability to successfully stir up controversy where there previously was none.

When approached by journalists after the PLP’s National General Council (NGC) meeting held especially to admonish him and bring him back into line for suggesting there is corruption in the party and a need for new leadership, Rollins declines to be interviewed, but is reported to appear to be in good spirits. He may have no information to share with the press, but he has smiles in abundance, because he knows exactly what he is about to do next.

Note the sequence of events. He suggests there is infighting within his party for the leadership position in the same, but never says who the warring factions are. He never says it. He never actually calls names. But, as the Bahamian children of his era would have once joked when someone broke foul wind, “the first one smell it do it”. A more mainstream translation: a guilty conscience needs no accuser. And who stands up first in parliament to give an official response to Rollins ‘allegations’?

Rollins baits his opponents like turbot fish. With one little bit of inducement – a mere insinuation, in this instance – where he implies the beginnings of a coup attempt within his own party, and with no names ever called, the whole d* party is beside itself.

Bradley Roberts:

The man they say you love to hate, “Et cetera, et cetera, and so forth” ... in his own words. The purveyor of miles of harsh language and name calling. He is in a permanent state of flux: always flustered, always flabbergasted.

Almost on cue, he is the first to publicly comment on Rollins’ hinting at an internal PLP leadership combustion, and believes Rollins’ soul is deeply troubled. Perhaps Roberts can give the young man some advice on soul-quenching, after breezing through his own character assaults and political challenges of recent years, rather than call him names.

But, more to the point, Roberts comes out swingin’ with no gloves on. Knuckles bleeding in the first round, he continues to slug Rollins into the ground, for not falling in line. But to what end?

And who can blame Rollins for baiting all the two-legged fish when his colleagues are such easy targets?

Philip ‘Brave’ Davis:

The shadow dancer. He is quoted as saying that he thinks the NGC meeting with Rollins went well and is satisfied with the outcome, only to have the tables turned on him the very next day when Rollins baits them all with talk of political insurrection.

After being hinted at by his fellow PLP parliamentarian, Davis goes home and comes back the next day with an adorable prepared speech to ensure that, even though no one called his name, everyone should be promptly informed that he wouldn’t dare challenge Perry Christie’s leadership in the PLP. As he petitions for the maintenance of his integrity, he reads from a prepared statement, aiming to avoid all risk associated with what he might or might not say if he didn’t have a script.

It is the usual routine display, lacking in sincerity and likely orchestrated in the mind of someone else, because the words, no matter how hard he tries, cannot flow freely.

The audience to this performance is left to wonder if Deputy Prime Minister Davis really believes that we, the public, believe that he in fact believes what he reads to us from his script.

Perry Christie:

The captain of our Titanic. A veteran at shuckin’ and jivin’, master word-flinger and a pro at dodging political ammunition, he, also, is quite pleased with the way the big showdown meeting goes at the PLP headquarters, so pleased in fact that, to follow, he confirms that he understands Rollins’ position clearly. The odd thing about this is that it is soon revealed that Rollins has said little to nothing in this meeting to be judged on. So what leads to Prime Minister Christie’s and DPM Davis’ confidence that Rollins is sufficiently gagged is unclear.

It would appear that Davis, Christie, Roberts and all others concerned are okay with Rollins, as long as Rollins knows and remembers his place and keeps his mouth shut. What the public should be asking is: how far does this per person philosophy extend into the philosophy of the entire PLP government? Are all players satisfied once the younger generation of leaders and activists would continue to know their place and shut up like Roberts has advised Rollins? Furthermore, what type of relationship can these two have after now?

Irrington ‘Minky’ Isaacs:

Making a special guest appearance, the PLP Chair Emeritus flanks Roberts in a press conference type interview wherein it is promised to the media, the public, all who would listen, that a four-member elected committee will decide Rollins’ inevitable punishment in the party.

Isaacs admits – we must wonder, does he even recognise it – that it is typical of Rollins to attend council meetings and sit as quiet as a mouse and say nothing, then go out into the public and into the media and talk like his mouth has no hinge (my words). You would think this would provide a big clue to the PLP senior members. Does this not tell them all that they need to know about Rollins?

Let’s see how long it takes for them to catch on.

• Share your thoughts online at tribune242.com, via email at Coleloquial@gmail.com, or on Facebook and Twitter using the handle @Coleloquial.