The revolution eats its own

By *Sten Sargeant

One of the more fascinating developments in Vincentian politics since the 2025 election is watching some of the loudest voices for “change” struggle with the reality of governing.

For years, a collection of social media commentators, influencers, activists and overseas personalities wrapped themselves in the national flag and insisted that their cause was not partisan politics. They were not, they said, campaigning for the NDP. They were campaigning for accountability, transparency, good governance and national renewal.

That narrative was always convenient because it allowed them to enjoy the political influence of opposition politics without accepting the responsibility that comes with political leadership.

Now comes the test.

The New Democratic Party won a decisive mandate from more than 37,000 Vincentians. The electorate listened to the arguments, reviewed the policies, read the manifesto, attended meetings, and made a choice. That choice was not to hand over the government of St. Vincent and the Grenadines to a collection of Facebook personalities. It was to hand over the government to elected representatives accountable under the Constitution.

Yet scarcely months into the administration’s term, some of the very personalities who celebrated the change of government appear determined to treat every policy proposal as a betrayal.

The Roseau River sand harvesting project is a perfect example.

Suddenly, social media is filled with outrage about environmental impact assessments, community consultation and the extraction of volcanic material from a dry river system. Yet publicly available information indicates that BRAGSA commissioned an Environmental and Social Impact Assessment, obtained approval through the Physical Planning process and conducted community consultations before the operation commenced.

More importantly, BRAGSA has stated that the Roseau operation is substantially similar to the long-established extraction activities at Rabacca.

That raises a simple question: what exactly is the difference?

For decades, “Rabacca stuff” has been extracted from the Rabacca River. Entire construction projects throughout the country have been built using volcanic aggregate from that source. If the principle itself is objectionable, where was the outrage all these years?

The answer appears obvious.

The issue is not the sand.

The issue is politics.

Too many people have become emotionally invested in remaining permanently outraged. They spent so many years opposing a government that they have forgotten how to distinguish between legitimate scrutiny and reflexive opposition.

The same pattern can be observed in the debate surrounding the cruise port concession. Government announces that it is entering negotiations. An MOU is signed. Before negotiations are completed, before final terms are published, before a concession agreement exists, the public is told that catastrophe is imminent.

This is the Vincentian equivalent of announcing that you are travelling to town solely to tell people you are not travelling to town.

If your family inherited a property that has deteriorated for 25 years and requires hundreds of thousands of dollars to restore, what are your options? Allow it to continue deteriorating because you cannot presently afford the repairs? Or seek a commercial arrangement with a party capable of investing capital while paying you an agreed return?

Reasonable people can disagree about the terms. What is unreasonable is pretending that there are no decisions to be made at all.

Governments govern. They negotiate. They invest. They take risks. They make mistakes. They are then judged by the electorate.

That is how representative democracy works.

What it does not require is that every influencer, commentator and Facebook personality become a shadow Cabinet unto themselves.

Many of those who now claim ownership of the NDP’s victory seem unable to accept that their role was to persuade voters, not to govern the country. There is a difference.

The electorate hired a government.

It did not hire social media supervisors.

Indeed, some of the loudest critics now find themselves trapped by their own rhetoric. Having spent years insisting that they stood only for “change”, they must constantly demonstrate independence by attacking the very administration they helped usher into office. Their audience demands it. Their brands depend on it. Their influence requires perpetual controversy.

The result is predictable.

Every issue becomes a crisis.

Every proposal becomes a scandal.

Every negotiation becomes a surrender.

Every compromise becomes a betrayal.

A country cannot be governed that way.

The Constitution already provides the ultimate mechanism for accountability. Governments are elected for a term. They govern. The people assess their performance. Then the people decide whether to continue on the same course or change direction.

That process cannot be replaced by daily plebiscites conducted through Facebook live streams.

Perhaps this is what Ralph Gonsalves meant when he predicted that some of these forces would eventually cannibalise themselves. Coalitions built around opposition often discover that governing requires patience, pragmatism and compromise, qualities that generate far fewer social media views than outrage.

The real question for Vincentians is whether we intend to give the government the opportunity to govern or whether we will permit a handful of unelected personalities to spend the next five years attempting to govern by inbox, livestream and outrage.

The country has already made its choice.

The government should now be allowed to do its job.

*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.

The opinions presented in this content belong to the author and may not necessarily reflect the perspectives or editorial stance of iWitness News. Opinion pieces can be submitted to [email protected].