The Star (St. Lucia) - - COMMENT - -----RW

It’s no cake­walk stay­ing on the same page with Kenny An­thony, a fact that un­doubt­edly has been costly to his po­lit­i­cal am­bi­tions, con­sid­er­ing the tsunami of pub­lic an­i­mus now threat­en­ing his legacy. As if al­ready his last term had not con­trib­uted enough to his abruptly changed cir­cum­stances, he ap­pears hell-bent on stok­ing threat­en­ing bon­fires. How else to ex­plain his con­tin­u­ing coun­ter­pro­duc­tive of­fi­cial and per­sonal at­ti­tude to­ward the Chas­tanets, the fa­ther and the son? And now he ap­pears to be tak­ing on large sec­tions of the so­ci­ety, ma­lign­ing iden­ti­fied cit­i­zens, even church of­fi­cials, as elec­tion-time dis­trib­u­tors of bribe money and worse.

Consider the fol­low­ing FB post un­der his name: “I do not be­lieve or ac­cept that the loss of the SLP is ex­plained by the mas­sive pur­chas­ing of votes. What I do ac­cept is that the pur­chas­ing of votes in­flu­enced the fi­nal out­come in some mar­ginal con­stituen­cies, for ex­am­ple, Den­nery South, Cas­tries South, Soufriere and Anse la Raye/Ca­naries.”

Is it just me, folks, or do you also de­tect the con­tra­dic­tion in the im­me­di­ately above? On the one hand he seems to be say­ing he does not be­lieve the SLP’s loss re­sulted from bribery. Then he says bribes were re­spon­si­ble for the SLP’s poor per­for­mance in four con­stituen­cies. To me, that adds up to a sug­ges­tion that “mas­sive pur­chas­ing of votes” had dumped the Kenny An­thony gov­ern­ment into six op­po­si­tion seats—not the peo­ple’s will.

But then when he was still prime min­is­ter he had set aside Suzie d’Au­vergne’s pro­pos­als for con­sti­tu­tional re­form on the ba­sis that “this ob­ses­sion with the power of the prime min­is­ter . . . does not re­flect the will of the peo­ple!” Noth­ing new there.

More from the cited FB post: “Some even doubt there are laws against in­flu­enc­ing elec­tors to vote or not to vote, brib­ing vot­ers to cast or not to cast their bal­lots. Well the laws against such acts are found . . . in the Re­vised Laws of Saint Lu­cia 2008.” From here he goes on to iden­tify in­di­vid­u­als who ei­ther were sent “to col­lect” or dis­trib­uted money to vot­ers.

“Pleas to po­lice of­fi­cers on duty went un­heeded,” he con­tin­ued. “I guess we all know why.” Well, I for one don’t know why. But Kenny An­thony is a lawyer; he does not need to fork out thou­sands of dol­lars for the ser­vices of a legal rep­re­sen­ta­tive. He has close friends and en­dorsers who would hap­pily help him put his case be­fore the courts, plus all the ev­i­dence he claims to have.

How per­plex­ing then to read: “I be­lieve a start should be made to ex­pose those who cor­rupted our po­lit­i­cal process on elec­tion day. We must name them and pro­vide the ev­i­dence of their cor­rup­tion acts and be­hav­ior. We must not al­low this mat­ter to die.”

I could not agree more!

He loudly de­clared from his cam­paign plat­form that “Guy Joseph’s voodoo” could not af­fect him be­cause he was “a blessed child of God.” But now Kenny An­thony is claim­ing church lead­ers bribed vot­ers in Elec­tion 666!

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Saint Lucia

© PressReader. All rights reserved.