“They cannot read me, I’m a mystery” became a mantra uttered by Pierre toward the end of his 2021-2025 term as Prime Minister, with a confidence that was rooted in something other than what we are accustomed to. He was not light-skinned, not from a wealthy family as far as I am aware, he was not “smooth-talking”, he did not present himself as having mastered any interna-tionalist or totalizing political philosophy or ideology (not that he couldn’t). He did not come with some lofty idea of what “society” should be that he hoped to impose upon his society. From all accounts, his was a slow process of observation of his society, the very real people within it, his “superiors”, their errors, the consequences they faced for the approaches they took, his antago-nists, himself. Such slow observation and gradual ascension is not valued in our society. The ac-cusation of lack of ambition hangs over our heads at every turn. For ambition is about what our education, our political or cultural capital can give us, how it can make us “special” or distinguish us from others. It is not — and has never truly been — about what we can give, what we can contribute to our societies (or even to our deeper selves). Ambition is not about maturity, at all, not about gradual growth; it is always simply about “getting” something that will get one some-thing else: usually money, power and/or respect.
I had virtually lost sight of Philip J. Pierre, during those years under Dr. Anthony’s prolonged lead-ership of the SLP. I had seen the blustering noise and sparks attending the rise of Allen Chas-tanet. and the Chastanet brand of “ambition”: of doing whatever one needed to do to be the lead-er, whether one was truly qualified to do so or not. But this was no basic leadership task that awaited him; it was the task of stewarding the destiny of 180,000 lives. This, is in a context where the idea of maturity has long been confused with “qualification” or being “bright” even as “brightness” only had to do with one very limited kind of intelligence. I cannot help but remember the words of one of my mentors who said that “writing” — the knowledge we encounter in all our schooling — is only a photograph of knowledge, not knowledge itself. Real knowledge however takes time, experience, relies on error, relies on voraciously witnessing the experiences of others. Real maturity is as obvious as the discomforts and changes of puberty. We cannot help but know that our time has come.
In so far as leadership of our country was concerned, Philip Pierre’s time however had undoubt-edly come in 2021, but even more so in 2025. And so too had our country’s time come, so too had our country matured to the point of being able to choose Pierre as leader. This is why this 2025 election was so crucial. The stark difference between the rise of Philip Pierre and Allen Chastanet could not be clearer. There is a kind of vanity in the Chastanet approach, a wanting to be the leader regardless of whether one truly possesses the requisite maturity. It is not only selfish but dangerous. Pierre confirmed for us that he was mature enough to lead precisely because he had served for so long under another, understanding that leadership is an act of service. On the other side, we had an Allen Chastanet who appeared out of nowhere, stepping brashly into the world of elective politics. Suddenly this Chastanet was appearing in places we had never seen him before, taking photographs that would somehow quickly “certify” some sort of Saint Lucian-ness that would get him the leadership position he desired. He was the carefully orchestrated “picture” of Saint Lucianness, not Saint Lucianness itself. By Saint Lucianness I don’t mean any particular cultural trait or complexion, but simply, like Pierre, having been there, having given of oneself in whatever small way to the totality. If the definition of leadership is one that is often skewed in favor of some outward quality like certification, money, or eloquence, then it is a ma-ture country that is able to see beyond and demand more than that. And Saint Lucia did.
Philip Pierre no doubt is a real man — a mystery, yes, but only to the unwise. Pierre is also a sign, just as Chastanet is, or would have been. The saying goes that the people get the leaders they deserve. If it is that we have gotten Philip Pierre twice over as a leader, it says something about the style of leadership we, the people, demand. However, it is not enough to say there has been a paradigm shift. Change has to be guarded and nurtured. With the same conviction as Le-ander Fields, who sounded the death knells of Allen Chastanet’s leadership hopes, we too have to demand what we shall never, never, never accept, and must continuously imagine keenly what we want and who we are. From there, the truly qualified leaders will emerge. From there, men like Pierre will cease to be an anomaly and a mystery.
As for Chastanet: five years in lonely opposition, dedicated service in being the counterbalancing force to the incumbent government — this time in sincerity, and with maturity — could be a fraction of what he may need to truly qualify as a leader. That is, of course, if he is interested in leadership that is not handed to him on a silver platter, or that can be bought at the right price.