By Imogen Pearce
In what can only be described as a stunning display of political tone-deafness, UPP Chairperson D. Gisele Isaac’s recent interview on Twin Island Media serves as a textbook example of how not to handle a party crisis. Her responses to Dr. Edmond Mansoor’s departure reveal a leadership that is not just out of touch, but actively living in an alternate reality where incompetence masquerades as strategy.Let’s begin with Isaac’s claim that Mansoor’s resignation “did not come as a shock.” This statement is laughable at best and deceitful at worst. If the party’s leadership was so acutely aware of his disengagement since April, why was nothing done to address it? This passive approach to retaining key party members speaks volumes about the UPP’s incompetence in managing its own ranks. It’s as if the party leadership was content to watch one of its most valuable assets walk out the door, all while pretending they saw it coming. This isn’t political acumen; it’s negligence bordering on sabotage.
Perhaps the most egregious statement in this farce of an interview is Isaac’s assertion that “no one is irreplaceable.” This cavalier dismissal of Dr. Mansoor’s contributions to the party strategy is not just disrespectful—it’s politically suicidal. If the UPP truly believes that losing strategists of Mansoor’s caliber is inconsequential, they’re in for a rude awakening come election time. It’s this kind of arrogance that has led to the party’s current state of disarray.
But wait, it gets worse. Isaac’s attempt to shift responsibility for party repositioning onto Mansoor himself is a pitiful deflection of leadership duties. If the party chair doesn’t understand what “repositioning” means after an electoral defeat, it’s clear the UPP is rudderless and adrift. The chairperson’s bewildered response, “I don’t understand what he means by that,” is a damning admission of her own incompetence. A party leader who can’t grasp basic political strategy has no business at the helm of a national opposition party.The chairperson’s list of post-election activities reads like a sad attempt to pad a failing student’s resume. “People’s Parliament” and legal challenges are not substitutes for a coherent political strategy. If this is what the UPP considers “being busy,” it’s no wonder they’re hemorrhaging talent. These are the actions of a party desperately trying to appear relevant while avoiding the hard work of actual opposition politics. It’s akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic while claiming the ship isn’t sinking.
In a final stroke of irony, Isaac has the audacity to question the principles and integrity of those leaving the party. This from a leadership that seems incapable of self-reflection or accountability. If the UPP is truly “built on principles and integrity,” perhaps they should start by looking in the mirror. The suggestion that individuals like Anthony Smith and Mansoor lack principles because they’ve chosen to leave is not just insulting—it’s a transparent attempt to discredit critics rather than address their valid concerns.Isaac’s dismissal of the Labour Party’s strategy to attract former UPP members is equally shortsighted. By framing these departures as mere “personal choices” rather than symptoms of a deeper problem, the UPP leadership demonstrates a willful blindness to their own failings. It’s not the Labour Party’s fault that the UPP can’t retain its talent; it’s a direct result of the UPP’s toxic internal culture and ineffective leadership.
The claim that the party remains strong despite these high-profile departures is perhaps the most delusional statement of all. Thousands of loyal supporters might stay through rain or shine, but loyalty without direction is just blind faith. The UPP seems to be banking on the unwavering support of its base while doing nothing to earn it or expand it.
This interview doesn’t just expose the cracks in the UPP’s facade—it reveals a party in full-blown crisis, led by individuals more concerned with saving face than saving their political relevance. The leadership’s inability to take responsibility for the party’s failings, coupled with their apparent lack of a coherent strategy for the future, paints a picture of a political organization on the brink of irrelevance.
If this is the best the UPP can offer in response to losing key members, Antigua and Barbuda voters should brace themselves for more disappointment from this once-promising opposition party. The country deserves better than a opposition that spends more time spinning narratives than creating real political change.
The UPP doesn’t need repositioning; it needs a complete overhaul, starting with its out-of-touch leadership. Until then, we can expect more talented individuals to jump ship, leaving behind a party that’s more focused on making excuses than making progress. As it stands, the UPP under its current leadership is not just failing as an opposition—it’s failing the very concept of democracy in Antigua and Barbuda
In conclusion, this interview serves as a stark reminder of why the UPP finds itself in its current predicament. A party that cannot honestly assess its own shortcomings, that dismisses valid criticism as disloyalty, and that seems more interested in maintaining the status quo than in genuine reform is a party destined for the political wilderness. The people of Antigua and Barbuda deserve an opposition that is vibrant, self-aware, and capable of holding the government to account. Instead, they have the UPP—a cautionary tale of how not to run a political party in the 21st century.
