By *Sten Sargeant
This week, I pick up somewhat where I left off.
After last week’s article, I was stopped in the streets, in supermarkets, in the vegetable market, in watering holes, and by real flesh and blood Vincentians from all walks of life, who essentially said the same thing: finally, somebody said it plainly.
The only real criticism I am advised is that I was somehow infringing on people’s freedom of speech.
That criticism, respectfully, is nonsense.
Freedom of speech gives every citizen the right to speak. It does not give every speaker immunity from being answered. It does not mean that every Facebook Live, every post, every article, and every convenient burst of confusion must be treated as wisdom. Democracy is not silence. But neither is democracy the tyranny of the loudest microphone.
One writer this week attempted to answer me by wandering into a dissertation about the “education revolution”. That was not my subject. My point was never that ordinary Vincentians must not think, speak, question, or participate. My point was that some persons who wrapped themselves in the national flag, claimed they were merely “campaigning for change”, and helped create the conditions for the NDP’s victory, now seem determined to behave as if the government must govern by their inbox or from their pages.
That is not democracy. That is vanity dressed up as vigilance.
Look at what is happening in the United Kingdom. By the time most people read this article, British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer KC, may well be on the brink of resigning as he is widely expected to exit No. 10 Downing Street. Sir Keir won a massive parliamentary majority of 411 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. Labour swept into office with power most political leaders could only dream of. Yet, in short order of two years, that government has been battered by by-elections, internal rebellion, cost-of-living frustration, policy reversals and the impossible burden of trying to please everyone at once.
This is what absolute powerlessness looks like: having a huge majority but no political command. The lesson for the NDP is simple. Do not make that mistake. The NDP did not campaign merely to occupy office. It campaigned on a compelling developmental narrative: the four pillars of the economy — agriculture, tourism, the blue economy, and the new economy. That is the mandate. That is the frame. That is the story the people accepted.
Now is not the time for ministers to sound like they are still brainstorming. The time for “ideas” has passed. The time has come for plans, programmes, policies and execution.
Yes, communicate. Yes, consult. Yes, explain. But govern.
The country cannot be rescued by permanent hesitation. We cannot spend five years explaining what we are thinking about doing. We must walk and chew gum at the same time: tackle the cost-of-living crisis, restore fiscal discipline, unlock investment, grow jobs, reduce waste, and push the four pillars from campaign slogan into national programme.
Already, the opposition and its surrogates have begun attacking the NDP’s cost-of-living promises while conveniently accepting no responsibility for the empty treasury they left behind. That is politics. We should expect it. But the answer cannot be paralysis. The answer must be delivery.
That brings me back to the Republic of North Leeward. It turns out I was right. The Roseau River controversy was never really about the sand. It was never really about the river. It was never really about the environmental impact assessment. Because once the discussion shifted to whether North Leeward should get a percentage of the proceeds, the mask slipped.
So what are we saying now? That it is dangerouns to the environment if the government sells the sand, but safe if the constituency gets a 25% cut? That the river must be protected until the percentage is negotiated? That the environmental impact assessment study can now be folded up and placed in the bottom drawer because the issue has become the St. Clair Leacock-style constituency development fund? I think some people need protection from themselves.
Let us be serious.
For decades, volcanic material has been taken from Rabacca. “Rabacca stuff” has helped build this country. After the 2021 La Soufrière eruption, volcanic sand and aggregate came down in volumes we can hardly comprehend. This material is not a curse. It is a resource. Properly managed, it should reduce construction costs, create employment, supply the Grenadines, support BRAGSA, and even be exported.
The Sandpiper Company in Bequia once imported white sand from Linden in Guyana. Now, volcanic sand is practically pouring out of our ears, and we are behaving as if using it is some national scandal. The real issue is management. The real issue is transparency. The real issue is ensuring that communities benefit from the one public purse without allowing every constituency to hold the government hostage.
And since we are now discussing keeping proceeds where resources are generated, may I ask: when will all government revenue collected in the Grenadines remain in the Grenadines? I will not hold my breath.
The same confusion is emerging around the cruise port.
Let me be clear: I am not a disciple of mass tourism. I do not believe the future of St. Vincent and the Grenadines lies in chasing more and more people who spend less and less money. Head tax and a few thousand gallons of water from CWSA will not transform this country.
What we need is value.
We need development in each of the main islands. We need yachting, mega-yachts and marinas to accomadate them, boutique tourism, heritage tourism, culinary tourism, sailing, diving, fishing, hiking, culture, wellness, music, festivals, village experiences, farm-to-table experiences, blackfish heritage, whaling history, volcano tours, island-hopping, and the kind of authentic Vincentian experiences that cause visitors to spend money in communities rather than merely pass through Kingstown with a plastic cup and a timetable.
The money is in the experience.
Edson Reece aka “Don-Tequila Ross” on his social media in the week outlined a list of experiences that could form part of a serious tourism product. That, in my view, is the direction we should be discussing and heading. Not mass arrivals for the sake of boasting about numbers. Fewer people spending more is better than more people spending less.
So yes, modernise the cruise terminal if the terms are right. Yes, negotiate with serious international operators if the country retains ownership and receives value. Yes, improve infrastructure. But do not confuse a bigger terminal with a better tourism economy.
The government must negotiate hard. It must publish enough information to build confidence. It must not allow the country’s assets to be leased away casually. But equally, the public must understand what an MOU is. An MOU is not the final contract. It is the beginning of a negotiation. We cannot behave as though every discussion with an investor is already a betrayal.
This is where the NDP must find its balance. It must not dismiss criticism. But it must not be governed by noise. It must not ignore the people. But it must not surrender the Cabinet room to social media. It must not become arrogant. But it must not become afraid.
Until then, speak freely — but do not confuse speaking with governing.
The NDP must listen, but it must lead.
It must consult, but it must decide.
It must explain, but it must act.
*Sten Sargeant is a barrister-at-law of Inner Temple in England, and a barrister-at-law, solicitor, notary public in St. Vincent and the Grenadines — the 6th from his native Bequia. He is also a trained mediator. He has a deep interest in history, politics, sailing and cricket, while moonlighting as a gourmet chef.
