“Never permit a dichotomy to rule your life, a dichotomy in which you hate what you do so you can have pleasure in your spare time…”
Pablo Picasso

The election season should be over in Belize; however, the Opposition feels slighted and has taken on a mandate to contest every conceivable angle available to them. I see both ridiculous and possibly legitimate challenges. The online forums that once promoted legal and political thought, advocacy, discussions, suggestions and challenges have taken a turn for the worse. Enter those forums now at your own risk; remember to put on your thick skins as the discussions have moved from issues to personal attacks. Party advocates are in no mood for logic, discussions or challenges.  Instead of addressing the issues, it has become a “bush doctor” psychological and accusatory evaluation of your position and if and when all else fails;  some good ole finger pointing, get out of here approach with a good mix of insults. I have deemed it the “bitch and whine club” (excuse the profanity). The opposition has literally hijacked certain social media forums and put out the “you are not welcome mat if you have differing opinions” approaches and tactics. . Their agenda is now set to promote their court cases through social media. They have no patience for discussion. Social media has become the battleground for free advertisements and agenda promotion.  A few people have confided in me that they now avoid certain sites because they have become attack sites for differing opinions. With that said, there were many issues that played out in the elections of 2012.  There were mistakes made by both parties and both expected to win. Every dirty trick was pulled out of the hat and only one winner prevailed. C’est la vie! Such is life! Be the change in the system;  but crying foul after engaging is the same behavior is  hypocritical!  I feel all the advocacy to promote party agenda disguised as social advocacy leads me to the following thinking.

Many times I have questioned the possibility for anyone, especially attorneys, to advocate positions which are contradictory to their party positions, and their personal belief systems. It suggests to me that having contradictory positions is having no position at all;  rather the person takes on a position based on public opinion, party trends or paid advocacy.  Such a clinical approach to advocacy forces me to make an observation that I think will manifest itself eventually.

I have much respect, unbeknownst to her, for one feisty legal advocate and party faithful. Her tenacity and ability to argue positions, even if it differed from previous positions just a month prior amazes me. And I am in no way being cynical.  She is the true legal advocate. She can argue from any position. She has proven her legal abilities to win hearts even if she loses court cases. However, I feel that her dual roles will eventually catch up with her.  The church agenda is popular in Belize and especially Belize City. I wonder how much the issue of gay rights played out in voting patterns. Everyone made an assumption that the elections was bought without ever conducting the necessary ‘after election’ poll to garner voter thinking.  A good friend of mine from a traditional PUP family and avid Catholic, refused to vote PUP because of the UNIBAM issue. She said it was the first time her family voted UDP because they saw the issue as of utmost importance to save Belize.  I tried to reason with her logic but religion is a powerful brainwashing tool.  I anticipate that my “friend’ the legal advocate and party faithful will be forced to make a choice very soon.  I sense these barrage of legal challenges signal political aspirations. If she has political aspirations, she will have to take a position on the issue. She will have to decide whether to advocate from the heart or to follow the drum of the party.  Both parties have distanced themselves from the unpopular issue. Some members of both parties have come out strongly against the UNIBAM position and no party wants one of their prominent members being a part of it.  So here lies the dichotomy of the legal advocate and party faithful.  How can you promote an unpopular position that your party prefers to distance itself from; how can you contest elected office on an unpopular issue and how can you continue to advocate from the heart?    Whose heart will be broken?