[dropcap][/dropcap]Writing in the Crusader newspaper around the mid-1970s, and later in the VOICE and the STAR, I praised those worthies who had dared to throw their hats in the political arena. I’ve long believed that politics is necessary and that it takes a certain type of spunk to devote one’s service to the welfare of his fellows and country – and to democracy. We are rightly critical of politicians who are easily charmed by hacks and scoundrels with little interest in people, country, or democracy. These smooth talkers remind us that, politicians should be firmly grounded in an ideology that puts people and country before self.
Indeed, politicians would be well advised to be careful to first study and examine people who promise social and economic progress, whilst secretly planning to defraud the national treasury. Politicians should also avoid making outrageous promises they cannot keep. These emotional outbursts lead them into the hands of fraudsters and their corrupt fixes. This matter of politicians knowingly promising the moon, challenges an independent press to do its work faithfully, refusing to pander to lies and skewed promises. The media must be careful not to sell its soul for a mess of pottage, as the Crusader newspaper would say.
In addition, the media ought to be interested in such questions as the following: Who does a government confide in and consult, before it lays plans and implements campaign promises? Does a government depend solely on civil servants and Ministers in executing its social and economic agenda? If a conflict arises, who does a government turn to for a third opinion and who carries the day? Are the ideas of its advisers for sale to the highest bidder? When its paid legal luminaries are tied to an opposition that conspires constantly to frustrate the government, how far should IT go in eliminating these obstructions?
Bearing in mind the many development initiatives government has outlined for 2018 and beyond, shouldn’t the above questions form part of an honest national conversation? Wouldn’t it be a great idea if persons with no axe to grind are chosen to facilitate such conversations in the media and in town hall meetings? We do not have to like and agree with everything these facilitators think or say. However, we need to develop a steadfast respect for each other’s points of view. If we have learned anything in the last 39 years it is that we are all on this journey together. When the rain falls and the wind howls, the resulting bad weather does not target specific homes. Its negative impacts are everywhere.
Still on the issue of a national dialogue, is it too late for an honest conversation on the departure of Governor General Dame Pearlette Louisy and the choice of her replacement? Given its history since independence, it would be naive to think that partisan politics would not intrude in the selection of a new Head of State. In time, we learn to take politics in stride and keep forging ahead with confidence. Accordingly, we are not aware that anyone had publicly suggested who best to have replaced Her Excellency, than the present appointee. Also, no one has suggested that Her Excellency should have remained and for how long.
Perhaps such national conversations ought to include ideas on how and when the Head of State ought to be selected/appointed, and the constitutional requirement necessary for the exercise of that need. Surely, recent partisan rumblings by the usual suspects must have been intended to embarrass the former Governor General. Such contrariness must also have served to question the constitutional power of the Prime Minister. By the way, are those who opposed the appointment saying that, the collective wisdom of the electorate as exercised in mid-2016 does not matter? As much as we admire persons who take the political plunge and serve their country and fellows, we admire more, the voter who turns out and cast his or her ballot in free and fair elections.
One may be free to feel a sense of disappointment with politicians who cross the floor especially where such crossing came suddenly and unexpectedly. Still, the disappointment can be expressed without a loss of one’s manhood, his dignity and his equilibrium. Life allows electors opportunities to amend their vote so as to avenge what they consider political wrongs. In the present situation, my curiosity has led me to contemplate who the public would recommend to the Prime Minister for this prestigious and grand honour. We envisage citizens who think some other more suitable as Head of State. Their silence adds nothing to a national dialogue.
We recall that a decade or so ago there was widespread consultation by a team headed by deceased justice Suzie d’Auvergne, who drafted a new constitution for the island. This document was not circulated and citizens were deprived of a closer look at it. It was tabled in Parliament after a long delay, and the least said about the debate that followed, the better.
To be sure, there are elements in any society that fall below average intelligence. One therefore does not expect national agreement on difficult matters such as a national constitution. Besides, unanimity on any matter, especially where gut feelings trump reasoning, is difficult at best. Notwithstanding, those charged with managing the affairs of the nation must keep in mind that people are the moving force of progress and development. National development goals fail where the people are ill informed or are led astray by political obstructions.
A wise leader therefore acts to promote the common welfare of his people and keep them informed at all times on pressing national issues. He aims to avoid and/or eliminate political obstacles in the path of progress. He must encourage the people to reject lies and threats to their social and economic progress by sour grapes and their hacks—especially coming from failed self-serving politicians. The clarion call in 2018 is to off load the monkeys from our backs, stop the bickering and unite and work for progress.
