COMMENTARY: Should A Political Party Drink Bush Tea For A Person’s Fever

 By Charlesworth C. M. Tabor, B.A., M.Sc. LL.B., L.E.C.

Should a political party drink bush tea for a persons’s fever? That question is certainly not a trivial one. Implicit in that question is the fundamental issue of what should be the praxis of a political party.

Before proceeding any further my answer to that question is a resounding and unambiguous yes.

If a political party refuses to drink bush tea for the fever of the people, that political party is failing in one of its most important tasks to mobilize the masses, engernder support for its ideas and being able to galvanize that support into political action.

Clearly, sensible political leadership focuses on judgment and the empathy and ability to connect with the experience and lived realties of the common man. For the leadsership of a political party to say, therefore, that it will not drink bush tea for a person’s or group of people (such as the pensioners) fever because they do not speak out against their own or national problems, is not only unwise and counterproductive but ridiculous and nonsensical.

While the rationale for the statement for not drinking bush tea for a anyone’s ever is based on the view that a citizen should take responsibility for their personal circumstance and should speak out, particularly if they are affected by government policies, and not wait for a political party to speak for them or motivate them to take action.

Such a view by a political party is rather misguided, irrational and myopic. In small societies such as Antigua and Barbuda where the tentacles of government spread far and wide (in fact the goverment is the largest single employer), the fear of speaking out stems from possible retaliation, social pressure, victimization and job insecurity. In these circumstances, it is for a political party to speak for the vulnerable, fearful and self-imposed voiceless individuals and not berate them and scold them for their silence by indicating you will not drink bush tea for their fever (i.e., social, economic, political and other problems they are facing).

Whatever an individual’s problems are it is incumbent upon a political party, and in particular an Opposition Political Party who wants to become the government, to canvass, engage, mobilize and galvanize the amorphous masses for their own political advantage. In democratic systems of government, it is for a political party to to take action on behalf of people to address their problems by advocating for reforms etc. Even where the amorphous masses do not see problems, but a political party does, it is for the political party to speak out for the people and not vice versa. The burden is on political parties to lead and not to abdicate their role and wait on the people to speak out and act.

History is replete with examples where organizations and political parties obtain support from the people (amorphous masses) when leaders exhibit an understanding of their problems, show empathy and genuine concern and initiate actions to address them. It is understood that the scope of the actions that an Opposition Political Party can take to deal with problems are limited. However, what is important is that people expect a political party to speak on their behalf and not to scold them for inactivity and silence. Political parties should show leadership.    

As a person who has read the writings of  Marx and Lenin, I am particularly intrigued by the concept of the Vanguard Party. The concept of the Vanguard Party was developed by Lenin in his pamphlet WHAT IS TO BE DONE written in 1902. The Vanguard Party was essentially a centralized group of disciplined revolutionaries that provided the practical and political leadership of the Bolshevik Party in Russia that led to the successful Russian Revolution in 1917.

The point I wish to underscore is that while the Vanguard Party was comprised of a small group of the most conscious workers, its objective was to work on behalf of the entire working class by engaging them in revolutionary politics to ultimately wrestle political power from the bourgeoisie. In the context of the focus of this article, the Vanguard Party would not be dismissive of ordinary members of the working class (proletariat) because they were not speaking out against Capitalism and demonstrating against the problems that affected them. In fact, it was the raison d’etre of the Vanguard Party to engage, educate, motivate and galvanize the working class to action. In short, the Vanguard Party would never tell a worker that the Party would not drink bush tea for their fever.

It is my position that any political party in any country, worthy of its name to be called a Political Party, should always operate as a Vanguard Party and by that I mean focusing on the interests of all the people, in particular the vulnerable, poor, powerless and voiceless. The party must act and advocate for the people even when they (the people) are not even aware of their own dilemmas. While Lenin’s concept of the Vanguard Party was advocacy essentially for the working class. The concept of the Vanguard Party is applicable to any situation.         

Finally, I wish to address a comment made by one Audley “Beef” Joseph on a video on Wednesday 21 January, 2026. In that video he vehemently disagreed that a political party should drink bush tea for anyone’s fever. He cited Genesis 18-20 as support for his view since he said that even Jesus Christ refused to drink bush tea for anyone’s fever. I could not find anything in Genesis 18-20 that supported his position. However, what I wish to tell him is that Jesus Christ drank bush tea for everyone’s fever when he was crucified on the cross so that mankind, according to the Bibe, could have everlasting life.   

Advertise with the mоѕt vіѕіtеd nеwѕ ѕіtе іn Antigua!
We offer fully customizable and flexible digital marketing packages.
Contact us at [email protected]