by Kenrick Quashie
The conversations are happening. They are taking place among committed NDP supporters, among people who actively campaigned for change and among Vincentians who may have no particular loyalty to the NDP but voted to remove the ULP administration.
These conversations are not isolated, and they are not simply the complaints of a few disgruntled or entitled individuals. People are comparing what they expected with what they are seeing, and many are not pleased.
A particularly troubling feature of the present moment is the apparent disregard for some of the people who helped to make political change possible. When they express disappointment or raise legitimate concerns, they are dismissed as entitled. Some are being told, directly or indirectly, to shut up and allow the government to work.
But whose government is it? The people now enjoying the authority, influence and benefits of office did not place themselves there. Ministers did not appoint themselves, and senior officials did not create their own opportunities. The people being described as entitled include those who campaigned, organised, contributed, defended the NDP and took personal and professional risks when victory was far from guaranteed.
This does not mean that every NDP supporter must be given a job, contract, promotion or personal favour. Neither does it mean that every ULP supporter must be removed, victimised or excluded. If that became the expectation, the new administration would merely reproduce the worst features of the political culture it was elected to change.
There is, however, a difference between governing inclusively and disregarding the people who carried the movement for change. There is also a difference between treating all Vincentians fairly and elevating people who actively opposed change, particularly when some of those individuals continue to frustrate, disrespect or exercise power over the same people who helped to elect the new government.
Imagine a civil servant shortly before the November 2025 elections declaring, “Yo pose soon cut.” The senior officer or politically connected person aligned with the then ULP administration understands that the words are directed at them. They may even respond with a few “throw words” of their own.
On election night, that civil servant is elated. The NDP has won, and the individual believes that a new political and institutional culture is about to emerge. Nearly one year later, however, very little has changed. In some cases, the previously powerful person has become even more powerful. That same civil servant must still go to that individual for signatures and approvals. Worse yet, the person who opposed the NDP is now being embraced, elevated and protected by the very government that the civil servant took risks to help elect.
That example summarises the sense of betrayal felt by many supporters of change. It is not simply about receiving personal benefits. It is about watching people who resisted change become some of its greatest beneficiaries, while those who fought for it are treated as an inconvenience.
Some staunch supporters of the former administration, including individuals whom that administration itself did not particularly value, have now been embraced and propelled forward. A few have become bold enough to throw their newfound influence in the faces of those who helped to put the present ministers and appointees into office.
There is a serious lack of political sensitivity in some of the inactions, actions and decisions of this administration. Political sensitivity does not mean acting illegally or unfairly to reward supporters. It means understanding the people who helped to create the opportunity to govern, respecting their sacrifices, listening to their concerns and avoiding decisions that unnecessarily humiliate or alienate them.
The people raising these concerns are often accused of impatience. Certainly, no government can correct every national problem within its first year. Institutional reform takes time, and the public must maintain reasonable expectations. But political sensitivity does not require five years.
You don’t need to conduct a feasibility study to have respect. Communication does not require foreign financing, and acknowledging the people who carried you into office does not require parliamentary approval.
There seems to be a disregard for the donkey used to ride into Bethlehem. Once the destination has been reached and the celebration has begun, the animal that carried the load is left outside and forgotten. This is not a sustainable approach to politics.
In another three years, when attention turns fully to the next general elections, many of the same people now being ignored will suddenly become important again. Ministers and candidates will return to the communities seeking campaign workers, contributors, defenders, organisers and voters. They will once again appeal to party loyalty and remind everyone of the danger of returning to the past.
It is very important to note that dissatisfaction with this government does not automatically send voters back to the ULP. Two or more things can be true at the same time. Vincentians can be disappointed with the NDP administration while remaining satisfied that they removed the ULP. They can feel betrayed by the government they elected without regretting their vote for change or having any intention of returning the former administration to office.
That is where I strongly believe the greater danger lies for this administration. A government does not have to drive its supporters directly into the arms of the opposition to lose political strength. It only needs enough of them to become inactive and unwilling to defend it.
Some will remain at home. Others will withdraw their financial support, campaign labour and public advocacy. Some may become open to a credible third force.
St. Vincent and the Grenadines may already be developing the conditions for such a force. Many Vincentians have no desire to return to the ULP, but they are increasingly questioning whether what they are receiving from the NDP administration is what they expected or voted for.
That gap creates political space. The danger is that it may eventually be occupied not by a principled alternative, but by another opportunistic group seeking its own turn at the spoils.
The government must pay attention to the conversations that are taking place now. It should not wait until the next election cycle to discover that disappointment has hardened into disengagement.
By then, the people whose concerns are being dismissed today may no longer be interested in explanations, renewed promises or appeals to party loyalty.
I write this knowing that it may come at the expense of my own interest in becoming secretary general of the NDP at some point. I am comfortable with that possibility. Personal ambition cannot be more important than the survival and strength of an institution that has existed for more than fifty years.
The NDP must be bigger than any one person. It must be bigger than any leader, minister, candidate, executive or government. The party and the government are connected, but they are not the same thing. The government holds office for a term at a time, while the party must continue long after the present ministers and generation of leaders have departed the political stage.
Those of us who are concerned about the direction of this administration are not necessarily trying to weaken the NDP. In many instances, the opposite is true. We are speaking because we understand that the actions and inactions of the government today will determine the condition of the party tomorrow. We do not want to inherit a damaged institution after those who enjoyed the benefits of office have moved on.
The time for course correction is not three years from now. The conversations are already happening, dissatisfaction is growing, and time is slipping away. The government must listen while the people who made change possible are still willing to speak.
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].