Elections not clannish?

Francisco Agulto seems rather defensive about an observation on the “clannish” nature of CNMI politics. He is appalled by the suggestion and finds it insulting. What is it that you find so offensive?

A clan is most often defined as:

Family: a group of people who are all members of a family or related through a common ancestor or marriage.

Politics is all about the power of the majority, within limits, to govern the whole. The history of political power is the history of the clan. The largest or most powerful clan traditionally rules.

I hear about Saipan clan gatherings all the time. There are sub-clans within families of the same name and they often have nicknames to differentiate them. Do clans have common goals? Of course they do. Why be ashamed to admit that they are sometimes political. It is natural to support those within your clan. Clan support is nothing to be ashamed of.

100 percent of clan members do not always give support to a particular goal but the power of clan support cannot be overlooked or denied. I doubt that there is a politician here who doesn’t try to get some clan support. Mr. Agulto suggests that to do so violates some “rule of the game” In fact, it appears, it is the rule.

There are very few segments of the American population that maintain significant clan relationships. Native Americans have struggled to maintain their clan identities and they use their clan strength for political purposes whenever they can. Why should it be otherwise here?

Mr. Agulto tells Mr. Vergara to keep his opinions to himself and leave politics to the “political community.” I don’t know if Mr. Vergara is a “guest resident” but, for the most part, that group is disenfranchised. They still have an interest in the welfare of this community. Without the vote what other avenue of expression do our guests have if not the press?

Almost half of Mr. Agulto’s letter deals with lessons learned from the American experience. Not mentioned by him, but high on the list, is freedom of speech. Our young men and women are fighting and dying at this very moment for, among others, that principle.

Outsider observers may touch on sensitive issues from time to time but they are not invalid merely because of the source. Carried to the extreme, Mr. Agulto’s logic would preclude the American press from making observations on the politics of Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Germany, France or any other country in the world where we are merely the “invited guests.”

Barry Hirshbein
e-mail