There's a lot of talk lately on radio shows, in social media, in grocery stores, in line at the chicken shacks, on bank lines and in private and government offices around Nassau about what Dr. Andre Rollins did or didn't do, said or shouldn't have said, during recent debates in Parliament and in the time that preceded his election to the House of Assembly as a PLP member of Parliament.
So many people have so much to say about Rollins' handling of political/government affairs in the House and in the media.
But all this talk about "Rollins should have known all along what the PLP was about" and chosen not to be a part of it, if he was in such great opposition to the PLP's methods and (unspoken) philosophies from the beginning, a sentiment being uttered by PLPs, FNMs, and DNAs alike, is really just amounting to spitting in the wind.
First of all, if Rollins didn't know what he was really and truly getting into, which may be a lesser possibility but a possibility nonetheless, then he also would not have known that the actions of the governing party could or would aggrieve him to the extent that they have, or that he would have become so impassioned about them that he would pitch a fit (or three) in the parliamentary debates and sessions.
It's also possible that Dr. Rollins knew very well what he was getting into, but sincerely thought he could make a real difference and that the PLP, as a unified group, would have been more attendant to his concerns.
But, what if neither of those possibilities was the reality?
What if Dr. Rollins knew about and considered - when he entered into politics and when he decided to cross over to the larger PLP that was ready and willing to embrace new blood to satisfy the party's own political agenda - all the possible ramifications and obstacles that would meet him along his walk with the PLP, but still decided to join them anyway?
What if, in fact, Dr. Rollins knew exactly what he was or could be getting into and foresaw the dissension between himself and his party, but chose to move forward anyway, in order to position himself strategically to create an unprecedented level of disruption within the party?
The changing landscape
Most young people were and, some are still, being taught to get a job, fit in, demonstrate ability and work their way up, doing whatever they have or need to do, in whatever capacity, until they can do differently.
But young people, nowadays, don't sit still for too long; the average time spent on one job is about two years. In a constantly evolving world driven by constantly evolving technologies and communications, and ferocious competition, it is almost problematic for an individual to believe he or she can get comfortable in one place for a long time; tomorrow's picture could easily be very different from today's.
By the same token, employers know that they have to remain modern; their company mandates and visions have to be focused on things that younger people find imperative: making improvements in their world, and not just making money for money sake.
Employers have to embrace new or restored ideologies and make concerted and consistent efforts to evolve with the universal mentality of the people they (now) hire.
Young professionals are primarily concerned today about growing by challenging the prevailing norms, preserving sustainable environments, committing to charitable causes and changing the world. And they're actually doing it.
For the PLP or FNM, as the two primary and longstanding political parties in this country, it must be obvious now, if it wasn't already, that the same old mechanisms and the tired old political claptrap is not what young politicians or young people are interested in.
And if the time comes for them to behave differently, in opposition to the norms, they will. When they have an opportunity to change the world, or in this case the political landscape, they will change it. And they will do whatever it takes to change it. They have new ideas, sharper tools, and they have more energy. This is not to say that they don't need certain wisdoms of the people who went before them, but young people and young politicians have something unlike most who did go before them; they are willing to take incredible risks. They will take whatever chances necessary to make the grandest statement and evoke the greatest change.
No mistake?
All that said, what if Rollins knew precisely what he was up against and chose to go against it anyway?
What if Rollins saw the PLP as a point of entry, to get the proverbial elder-advised 'foot in the door', and then create the beginning of a general uprising against the establishment? What if it was his intention all along to gain that access and to play by the rules until he could change them, or at least bring about the movement needed to change them, by using himself as the guinea pig?
Many are asking why he did not resign from his post as Gaming Board chairman, as he resigned from his position as party whip. But, given all of the above, and anything you could think to add to it, really, why would he resign?
Look back at history. Look back at Bahamian sociopolitical history. Do you remember clearly who resigned and why? Maybe not so much.
Do you remember more clearly who was fired and why?
It is far more memorable to be fired in politics or by specific politicians, than to resign. If you are fired, the impact is far-reaching and long-lasting among the citizenry. The fact that you were fired from such a position as the one Dr. Rollins held, and under such conditions, resonates among the people for many years to come.
It is regarded as a greater injustice in the hearts and minds of the people. They will see the person doing the firing as the wrongdoer and the person being fired as the wronged, and they will sympathize with the latter, especially when he is standing on principle.
Will you ever forget what was done to Edmund Moxey?
Take a look at the people who are supporting Rollins in his recent acts and words of defiance; they are mostly young(er) people. Compare that to the majority who condemn him for it; they are the not-so-young. This is not to say that older people have exceeded their 'use-by' dates, but, which grouping will matter most significantly, as an electorate, in the next 15 to 20, or 40 more years?
Current and staunch party members, PLP or FNM, must not regard Rollins' or any other young political candidate's actions as random or label her or him a firebrand. There is more at play than meets the eye.
o Facebook.com/politiCole.

Click here to read more at The Nassau Guardian