Andrew Sage (44:49)
But I suppose that brings me to my first critique, which is something that plagues Grenada Both before, during and after its revolution. When you have a political culture dependent on a maximum leader or a personality cult or just a grouping around her personality, whether that's Bishop or Gary or Cord for one, it's a continuation of the colonial politics of the British in that sort of governor position. And it also, I think leads to a contempt towards common people. Whether it starts out that way or not, it eventually makes its way into that direction. I still see personality politics rear in its ugly head in Trinidad, even though we've been independent for even longer, you know, 1962 as opposed to Grenada's 1974. But the result of that kind of politics is, you know, ideological and policy splits are either non existent or secondary to personality, loyalties, familial ties and in some cases ethnic loyalty. The United National Congress, the unc, the party in power in Trinidad right now, party responsible for our current position, is a personality cult led by current Prime Minister Tamapa's abecessor. And she's only one of many examples of this sort of party first leader, first approach to politics that we see in the region, a baggage that we see in the region. I know with radical politics it's sad because you expect to do away with that kind of stuff. But the revolution in my view, had a lack of decolonization away from the authoritarian tendencies of colonial rule. That I think is why there was such an appeal in Leninist thought and rule to begin with, because it's a lot easier to approach. You know, it doesn't unpack the psychology of colonialism or unpack how Gehry's rule may have shaped their own approach to politics, that another politics might, that another anti politics might. And so they carried on this elitist, authoritarian, personality based politics, you know, despite having a youthful beginning. Bishop was 29 when he started a mutual movement, which is the same age that Gary was when he got into politics. I know one could make a movie of the mirrors and their histories. But despite his youthful beginning, the youth carried on the mistakes of their forebearers. They betrayed the excitement of people power that people had for the revolution, just as they betrayed the excitement of people power that people had for independence. And they continued a consciousness of deference to hierarchy. Again, I don't want to draw one to one comparisons between Gary and Bishop. I recognize their stark differences in their politics and in their engagement with the people of Grenada. They were not the same, but in some ways they did rhyme. I would wrap up, I suppose, with Bundy's sort of critique of Grenada's Revolution, which is what I just echoed, this continued consciousness of a deference to hierarchy. A genuine revolution depends on people taking direct responsibility, not waiting for leaders or stages of development, not waiting on guidance, being empowered themselves. That sort of tired Leninist gradualism and bureaucratic control gets regular people no closer to actually having a sense of autonomy and control over their lives. And as Fundy emphasizes, especially in small Caribbean societies, participatory local self managed systems are entirely feasible. In closing, Fundee suggested that Grenada's revolution failed because it moved away from this principle of immediate collective self management and deliberately chose hierarchy. And from that hierarchy came a sense of eroding trust, came a sense of secrecy, became a sense of secret societies. And I created a culture of secrecy opposed to transparency that led to its downfall. As I mentioned, it was gossip, a rumor of somebody trying to kill Bishop that got this ball rolling. So today I want to appeal directly to Caribbean radicals of all stripes to learn, to earnestly learn from the Canadian revolution. On appeal not just to Caribbean radicals, but to radicals all across the world, all across our listenership. It is critical in times when the means of intervention and the means of disruption and division and co optation are more powerful than ever, that you engage in the sort of dissipation of leadership, that you engage in grassroots and dispersed empowerment, that you maintain an anti authoritarian ethos that cannot be co opted by a charismatic power. But you take an approach to organization that does not lend itself to the vulnerabilities of hierarchy, that you consider moving like Mycorza, that you take on networks and free associations rather than the sort of X marks to spot bullseye, centralized parties and the power struggles that ensue from them, from that thirst for power that led to so many downfalls of the revolutionary imagination. Before we wrap up, I just want to ask James if you have any thoughts.
