The Scorpion and the Frog

While reminiscing about political events recently, I could not help remembering a famous fable told by Honourable Bernard Georges; incidentally a man ideally suited to succeed the impulsive SNP leader. Mr. Georges related the story to the National Assembly to illustrate the attitude and voting pattern of the SPPF MNAs. I think it is apt to revisit the story to illustrate the recent behaviour of the Leader of the Oppositon. Mr. Georges said:

“There was once a scorpion and a frog. One day whilst the frog was lazily basking in the afternoon sunshine along the banks of the river, along came the scorpion confidently strutting his stuff. “Hey, frog” he shouted. “How about giving me a ride on your back to cross the river?” The frog replied meekly. “Scorpion, if I give you a ride on my back to cross the river, you will bite me and I will drown.” To which the Scorpion replied endearingly, “Don’t be silly. If I stung you in the middle of the river we will both drown and I certainly don’t want to die.” The frog agreed to carry the scorpion and away they went. When they reached the middle section of the river the scorpion stung the frog and as they both started to drown, the frog pleaded with the scorpion. “Scorpion why did you bite me when you knew that we will both die?” The Scorpion replied, “Frog, I am really sorry and I beg for your forgiveness. I tried not to bite you, believe you me, I tried my hardest, but it is in my nature and I just couldn’t help myself.”

In this story, Ramkalawan is like the Scorpion and Chow is like the frog. Both Ramkalawan and Chow know very well that in order to beat the SPPF in any election the opposition has to remain united and fight in sync as one cohesive unit in order to achieve their goal. Ramkalawan knows that if the Alliance is broken the task will become almost impossible for the SNP alone. But he still went and broke the alliance because it is in his nature to self-destruct. When he made that decision, Ramakalawan does not see and does not care about the consequences. For him, it is in his nature to destroy what has taken many years to build by the efforts of so many people. The consequences of that single decision do not matter in the least; even if it means that the SPPF will win the next Presidential election. But then again an astute politician has remarked that the decision of Ramkalawan to break the opposition alliance, although generally perceived as irrational and unintelligent, was one geared towards self preservation as Mr. Frank Elizabeth was perceived by many to be getting too close for comfort in the National Assembly!

If this is true, then Ramkalawan is not as brainless as people think. Any leader faced with a situation where his leadership is perceived to be under threat has to behave ruthlessly to remove the threat. Remember the fate of Alain Ste. Ange. At this very moment that the leader makes that difficult decision he has to weigh and balance what he would lose ultimately if he allows the political threat to fester and grow and what he will gain if he eliminates the threat immediately before it grows into a monster and engulfs him completely. This is the decision that a political leader has to make in order to survive politically, although it may not seem rational or logical at the time and the perceived threat is more imaginary than real. This is a Machiavellian approach to politics and it has happened before in many countries in the world. Let’s face it, Frank Elizabeth, it is agreed by almost everyone, was doing a good job in the National Assembly. He was doing such a good job perhaps, that he may have been perceived as a political threat, not only by the Leader of the Opposition, but also by the SPPF as well. By removing him from the National Assembly, Ramkalawan has not only done himself a political favour but also, coincidentally, the SPPF. Thus, the reluctance of both Ramkalawan and the Speaker of the National Assembly, to comply with the Court order and reinstate Mr. Elizabeth in the National Assembly!