Letters & Opinion

Tit for Tat, Butter for Fat

By Earl Bousquet
By Earl Bousquet

I was beginning to wonder how far the family-name name-calling would go in this election campaign and to what extent it will affect the next general elections here. That is, until I heard the Prime Minister on Wednesday.

Dr Anthony and the SLP’s main spokespersons have been getting a beating from opposition critics for suggesting it would be a major political mistake to put “the Chastanets” in power by electing the UWP, which would result in Allen Chastanet becoming the island’s next prime Minister.

Indeed, Social Transformation Minister Harold Dalsan was shown on TV a few days ago, painting out what he sees “the Chastanet family dynasty” will look like (if the UWP is elected) with Allen Chastanet as Prime Minister.

By the former school principal’s already sketched-out account, the already intertwined Chastanet and Du Boulay families will dominate the gubernatorial landscape in the following way: Michael Chastanet (Allen’s father) as Governor General, Allen Chastanet as Prime Minister, Mrs Allen Chastanet as Attorney General and her father Dunstan Duboulay as Minister of Commerce.

Earlier (last Sunday), I had seen and heard my friend Michael Chastanet thank me for my review of his book launch at The BookYard, during which he made the connection between “The Bousquets and The Chastanets”, connecting my father and his, who were both in the boating and shipping business before him.

Then I saw and heard the UWP leader refer to “The Bousquet brothers” during his recent address at a playing field in Jacmel (where it so happens that Sandals spent some money in some refurbishment of the community’s sporting facility).

He was giving his first glimpse of the configuration of a UWP Cabinet under his watch as UWP Prime Minister and offered Anse la Raye and Canaries “a deuce-bal” (a double-win). First, he said, he would make Sandals’ Dominic Fedee “my protégé and Tourism Minister”. Then, he promised that if Anse la Raye and Canaries voters elected Fedee, he (Chastanet), as Prime Minister, will add “Hermangild Francis as Security Minister.”

The UWP leader also played the political family name game that night. He mentioned how “the two Bousquet Brothers” had joined John Compton, George Mallet, Henry Giraudy and Maurice Mason (he actually had Mason’s Christian name wrong) to form the UWP in 1964.

With that, I was able to extend the illustration of the Chastanet Cabinet that Mr Dalsan started painting from his undoubtedly colourful vision: the four he already named (Du Boulays and Chastanets), plus the new Anse la Raye and Canaries political twin (Fedee and Francis). Using Mr Dalsan’s yardstick, I would also add Peterson Francis to the next UWP Cabinet, whether he wins or loses in Castries central. Why? Because Peterson has said he left Labour because Kenny didn’t give him a seat to run and Hermangild left too for the same reason. So, I surmised, if ‘Ti Chas’ can promise Hermangild a Cabinet post without giving him a seat either, who is to stop Peterson from demanding a Cabinet seat as well, after having run for Castries Central — win or lose?

Out of a Cabinet of (say a dozen ministers), seven will have been named by the wannabe Prime Minister — according to the Dalsan formula – that would include three sets of families: the Chastanets, the Du Boulays and the two Francis brothers.

In an interview with Shelton Daniel on his RSL programme ’90 Minutes’ that morning, Someone called to comment on the response of UWP supporters to the SLP Leader’s references to “The Chastanets” during last Sunday’s launch of the SLP’s Dennery South candidate.

The lady caller expressed surprise that Saint Lucians who are criticizing Dr Anthony today for mentioning “The Chastanets” seemed to have forgotten that it was in fact Sir John Compton who first accused the SLP – back in 1996 and 1997 – of wanting to bring back the slavery he fought against when he fought “The Barnards” in the 1950s in the Dennery Valleys. Few people knew back then of Kenny Anthony’s association with the Barnard family, but Sir John let the world know that Kenny Anthony “is a Barnard” and therefore associated with the Barnard plantocracy and/or aristocracy built by his father and uncle. (Sir John knew, of course, that Kenny Anthony never associated with his father and is probably the only son who refused to sign and adopt his father’s surname, but that didn’t matter in his mind… He had to do whatever he could to keep Kenny Anthony out, so associating him with a father he never associated was fair game.

The Barnard Family link would be played out against Kenny Anthony after he led the SLP to victory and became Prime Minister. He would appoint seasoned local hotelier Craig Barnard as Chairman of the Tourist Board. No one here would argue against that appointment, as that Barnard, the island’s biggest local hotelier, was the right man for the job. But here again, the UWP – while Sir John was still alive – publicly opposed it, accusing Kenny Anthony of appointing a relative to the post, which somehow the UWP also saw as a conflict of interest. Here again, Kenny Anthony was no great fan of his First Cousin, but he offered the job to him in the national interest, only to be accused of planting his family into a top government post. Craig Barnard didn’t need either the post or the bad press he was getting, so he just told Kenny to keep it.

Still in the political family vein, the caller to Shelton Daniel’s programme on Wednesday also recalled that it was Sam ‘Juke Bwa’ Flood who first christened Michael Chastanet and Allen Chastanet as “Go Chas” and “Ti Chas”, respectively. She recalled how much Sam so vehemently attacked father and son, accusing them of everything from plumage of people to feathering their nests through fixed supermarket prices. But the caller was equally surprised that everyone seemed to have forgotten that Sam had been the unlikely godfather who had christened “Go Chas” and “Ti Chas”. And she noted she stopped hearing the loquacious Creole tongue twister “only after he got married at Coco Palm hotel.”

The Prime Minister’s response was, in effect, that he was equally surprised that so many people seemed to have forgotten that it was the UWP, under Sir John, that started the family name-calling by accusing him of “wanting to bring back the Barnards” to reintroduce slavery on the backs of Saint Lucians.

Dr Anthony pointed out – and that was more refreshing than surprising – that despite the general feeling that he hates Michael Chastanet, to the contrary, he and Chastanet are still on speaking terms and they do in fact greet respectfully when they meet. They talk on the phone and Dr Anthony also said he still has the same respect for the man he once appointed a goodwill business ambassador for Saint Lucia and made him chairman of the National Development Corporation under his watch.

But, Dr Anthony pointed out in his reply, where the line is drawn between him and Michael is when the latter would do and say the things he does and says to support his son. The Prime Minister said he does not expect – and no one should – that a father will not support his son. But when he does (like Chastanet has done) things like establish his own TV programme to consistently attack the Prime Minister and his entire government on a weekly basis to support his son’s political war against the government, that’s (obviously) another matter.

I’ve now listened to both Michael Chastanet and Kenny Anthony speak about their past and present relationships and I have every reason to believe that in their moments of silence and loneliness each will have regretted that Allen came between them in the way he has. Both men (Mike and Kenny) know that neither of them is any less who he was before Allen exercised his right to choose politics over the family business. But having exercised that right to try to transform the Chastanet family name from its traditional association with business to politics, never mind that both “Go Chas” and “Ti Chas” know that Kenny Anthony isn’t “a Barnard” of his father or uncle’s mould, he will be treated as “a political enemy” of the Chastanets in the current political arena.

It’s sad that this ‘tit for tat, butter for fat’ scenario has been playing out in relations to family names and politics in Saint Lucia today. If it was all about placing all our traditional families in their correct historical context for the purpose of helping Saint Lucians better know who we are and whence we cometh. But the way we’re doing it now, I can only surmise that this is one of the unfortunate realities in the mind of whoever coined the phrase that (especially in our kind of politics) “S**t Happens!”

1 Comment

  1. Politics has its ills. What troubles me is the willingness by every one to accept them and never demand better. Politicians are supposed to be the cream of the educational system. They call meetings. During those meetings they expect the public to conduct themselves properly. The same is expected of them but at a higher level, especially being more educated than the normal public. We are supposed to be the present who are using the past to better ourselves. Our predecessors were insightful and intelligent to the point that they set standards, moral, ethical, that everyone had to adhere to. What have we added to those standards after hundreds of years.? Have we also allowed some of these standards to erode which is resulting in problems. Personal and family issues should never to used as scapegoat when challenging someone. Stick to the issues. Tactics of that are acts of desperation by individuals who are I’ll prepared or have not done their research on the meaningful issues. Too childish and should no longer be tolerated by the public. Let these men conduct themselves professionally and respectfully. They want to be leaders, then take the torch and lead righteously.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Send this to a friend