If a day is a long time in politics, a week can be a near eternity.
The days ending last month in the Virgin Islands were an extended inflection point, politically. In other words, there was a change of plot in the national political narrative. Three things happened during those days. And for those who, like this observer, endeavor to read the territory’s day-to-day political events, especially the hidden portions between the lines, there were three significant developments.
The first development was this one: The incumbents may have begun the difficult task of salvaging their sinking political ship, which had been taking in a lot of water. This sinking vessel started its journey to the bottom of the sea after it was hit by a stealthy torpedo called poor public relations. And the result of the impact was a very palpable public anger. This anger was mostly the result of the incumbents being unable to get their message across, over and above the well-aimed darts thrown by some of their media critics. There was also an apparent gap between the national vision of the incumbents and public perception of their political motives. But as of the start of this month, that public anger appeared to be decreasing. In this observer’s very unscientific estimation, it now is being assuaged.
This very gradual appeasement of public sensibility is a turnaround for the incumbents — albeit a slow turnaround and a subtle change in local politics. This was evident most clearly in some very deft political foot play in the month of July: especially by a veritable political sharpshooter, as portrayed in an earlier article by this commentator on demographic politics in the territory.
‘Divide and rule’
Demographic politics in the VI continues to play out in a manner very much unexpected by those who started the divide-and-rule narrative. These were media personalities especially, who had been harping on about the right of entitlement for some Virgin Islanders and residents over others, who clearly have just the same rights. As this observer warned months back, entitlement politics can easily backfire. In fact, they may be backfiring already. If one is going to play the demographic game, a theme synonymous with entitlement and jingoism, one had better understand it is not clear-cut politics. Demographic politics is a double-edged sword that can cut sharply on both sides. Cleverly, the opposition has heeded this advice to jettison entitlement politics — but not certain commentators, it appears.
Now, in a previous narrative on demography in VI politics, this commentator alluded to an online article in which a politician argued that citizenship by birth in the VI should be the norm — a very fair and humane assertion. Since then, a later story of Aug. 5 described how this veritable swordsman had fired back at his critics by stating that expatriate children must be “freed.” Indeed, it is always heroic to fight for the welfare of children. And voters instinctively remember when children are treated either fairly or unfairly. The story created a mini storm online, which is no surprise.
This observer argued in an opinion piece at the time that this was demographic politics being played out. Furthermore, it may have put the VI-born voter with migrant parents — probably the fastest growing voter group in the territory — squarely in the corner with the incumbents.
Why? Because people do not like feeling victimised, and they admire a politician who is willing to put his neck on the line to protect their rights and fight for the rights of the vulnerable and oppressed, especially children. It shows courage, and what Winston Churchill once referred to as vim. On the other hand, those against such a fair demand will look, well, just a little arrogant. So these well timed and well placed statements, notwithstanding what some may assert, were excellent politics for the incumbents.
‘Silent majority’
The second recent development was a noticeable, palpable and new awareness of the men and women on the territory’s street corners. This is the silent majority, the mighty Tom Taxpayer, Joe Mele, and Consuela Sweetness. That awareness is this: The VI voter is gauging closely the incumbents and their ability to deliver on their pledge to complete certain key national projects within a politically acceptable timeframe.
This feeds into another narrative: that the incumbents have a plan for the territory in terms of their quest to grow the national economy. The opposition’s key attack dog is doing a great job holding the feet of the incumbents to the fire. But the opposition is yet to come out with a plan of its own. It also has been accused of not having a plan when it ran the territory during the preceding term. So the opposition needs to come out with a comprehensive plan for the territory over the coming months.
One more thing is this: It seems the incumbents will deliver on one major project in 2014. And it is looking very likely that the nasty smells emanating from certain crevices, drains, pipes and sinkholes in certain parts of the territory, especially the capital city, could well become a thing of the past in this current political term. That will be a crucial feather in the political cap.
Opposition leadership
The third development in the month of July was growing evidence the opposition faces a major hurdle if it is to have any hope of power at the end of 2015 and the beginning of 2016. This barrier to power has to do with its leadership shenanigans: the succession question. The ambiguity in deciding on this matter has begun to take a toll politically. A certain move to bring a no-confidence vote against the current incumbents, which could never have worked, appeared to have been a play of internal party power positioning. It brought to the fore the key opposition protagonist, who may well rule the house of the opposition in the future.
A clear frontrunner has emerged to take over the opposition’s reins. And he appears to be the one man, as this observer earlier asserted in previous stories, who can bridge the gap between the old guard and the restless youth pounding at the opposition’s back door, demanding a say in how things should be running in that very powerful outfit. He is also the one man capable of bridging the gap, soothing the various warring factions in that party, and bringing them together.
So the play of bringing about this vote had deeper motives. The territory’s leader described the vote as a sign of a healthy democracy. It certainly was, but it was also much more than that. It was a masterstroke in the game of power by another very skilled political sharpshooter and formidable operator. Both parties have their big guns.
Third party?
This observer also commented earlier on a third party entering the scene. His belief remains that any third force had better make its debut soon, or it will be outside the current political narrative.
Why is this? Well, once a political narrative gets going and becomes ingrained in the public imagination, especially in the party system of politics, it becomes very difficult to change that narrative. Furthermore, if a third phalanx is to have any chance of success, it needs to make a powerful entry onto the political stage, with a very long and strong list of candidates and a tenacious marketing strategy. This strategy will cost money — lots of money! Every moment will count for any third political force as the clock ticks towards 2016. The longer the third infantry waits to enter the field of political war, the greater the disadvantages it will face.
That will leave it to become at best a spoiler at the next general election, taking away votes from — well, your guess is as good as mine!