Tweet
quest for prosperity. Why? Read on:
It's now or never
Henley Morgan
Thursday, October 25, 2007
I hold some beliefs about Jamaica and its future prospects that will not change; no matter how convincing an argument those of a different persuasion are able to muster.
1) Jamaica has the natural and human assets to make it one of the most appealing places on earth to live, work and raise families.
2) We have collectively squandered the assets so that today there is hardly a Jamaican alive who could truly say that as a country or a people we are living near our potential.
3) Chief among the factors causing the social and economic decomposition is political tribalism: that sinister and evil hand that has inflicted upon our beautiful land the most heinous and resistant form of crime.
4) Until the garrison is dismantled and with it the legacy of years of political cleansing and gerrymandering, Jamaica will not rise to provide the majority of citizens with a dignified way of life, much less "play her part in advancing the welfare of the whole human race".
I have also come to another conclusion. With Bruce Golding and Peter Phillips occupying the positions of prime minister and leader of the opposition (in rotation as determined by the electorate) for the next 15 years, Jamaica will be a significantly different place at the end of the period than it is today. What has brought me to this conclusion? Both men, Bruce and Peter, bear a striking similarity in important ways.
For a start, they both attended Jamaica College together. Bruce was head boy while the younger Peter served as a prefect. Sons of teachers, the only major difference in their high school career is maybe the fact that Peter was a boarder, which is thought by some people to lend itself to a certain type of socialisation.
Not surprisingly, the two are very similar in their thought processes. Belonging more to the inductive rather than deductive mode of reasoning, the tendency for them is to move from personal experiences (effects) to the underlying truths (causes). Schooling and breeding no doubt have something to do with the similarity. But probably more important is the fact that both men have had their Road to Damascus experience. Peter went into Rastafarianism and radicalism, and back again. Bruce had his highly publicised departure from the JLP to form the NDM and is back, not just as the head of the JLP but the government.
The point is that they are two of the finest thinkers in politics anywhere today. They are self-confident as only persons who have thought long and hard about the issues and settled certain things in their mind can be, and they want change.
Listen to Bruce talk about changing the political culture by bringing the opposition into the centre of governance. Peter, for his part, in a public address about three years ago, boldly made the connection between political tribalism and the existence of garrisons. He did so in a manner that went beyond personal culpability into deep analysis and understanding of how things came to be the way they are.
The two men are also alike in some ways that are not helpful to the reform agenda they espouse. They both represent garrisons, the very thing that I have identified as the albatross around the neck of the nation and which they say they abhor. Peter as minister of national security failed to tame the monster of crime, ending his tenure with a net increase in homicides. Bruce commissioned a study of the causes and solution to crime and violence, and left the most politically unpopular but potentially effective recommendations out of the JLP manifesto.
But they are proud and well-intentioned men who do not want to leave the political stage with their record sullied . and they need each other.
Bruce in particular needs Peter at this time. His bold ideas for political reform will resonate more with Peter as leader of the opposition than with some of his own who reduce everything to political contest. I believe Peter will cut Bruce some slack, so to speak; allowing him to govern on his thin margin in order to stabilise the country around consensus on those things that keep us bound. Whether out of enlightened self-interest or love of country, both are redeemable.
Jamaica is caught on the twin horns of a dilemma - debt and death. So related are the two things even the pronunciation is indistinguishable. The only way out of the malaise is for Bruce Golding to pick up the Roadmap to a Safe and Secure Jamaica which he commissioned in 2006, and for Peter Phillips to pick up the Report of the National Committee on Crime and Violence which was produced in 2001 during his tenure as minister of national security; approach each other and say, let's build a new Jamaica.
The odds are remote that a country would possess two political leaders from opposing sides that are so alike in the essential attributes and with a vested interest in achieving the same ends. If Jamaica is to ever turn around, it is now or never.
The above must be a sick joke. Ja i wish you well (in slavery you will live always).
It's now or never
Henley Morgan
Thursday, October 25, 2007
I hold some beliefs about Jamaica and its future prospects that will not change; no matter how convincing an argument those of a different persuasion are able to muster.
1) Jamaica has the natural and human assets to make it one of the most appealing places on earth to live, work and raise families.
2) We have collectively squandered the assets so that today there is hardly a Jamaican alive who could truly say that as a country or a people we are living near our potential.
3) Chief among the factors causing the social and economic decomposition is political tribalism: that sinister and evil hand that has inflicted upon our beautiful land the most heinous and resistant form of crime.
4) Until the garrison is dismantled and with it the legacy of years of political cleansing and gerrymandering, Jamaica will not rise to provide the majority of citizens with a dignified way of life, much less "play her part in advancing the welfare of the whole human race".
I have also come to another conclusion. With Bruce Golding and Peter Phillips occupying the positions of prime minister and leader of the opposition (in rotation as determined by the electorate) for the next 15 years, Jamaica will be a significantly different place at the end of the period than it is today. What has brought me to this conclusion? Both men, Bruce and Peter, bear a striking similarity in important ways.
For a start, they both attended Jamaica College together. Bruce was head boy while the younger Peter served as a prefect. Sons of teachers, the only major difference in their high school career is maybe the fact that Peter was a boarder, which is thought by some people to lend itself to a certain type of socialisation.
Not surprisingly, the two are very similar in their thought processes. Belonging more to the inductive rather than deductive mode of reasoning, the tendency for them is to move from personal experiences (effects) to the underlying truths (causes). Schooling and breeding no doubt have something to do with the similarity. But probably more important is the fact that both men have had their Road to Damascus experience. Peter went into Rastafarianism and radicalism, and back again. Bruce had his highly publicised departure from the JLP to form the NDM and is back, not just as the head of the JLP but the government.
The point is that they are two of the finest thinkers in politics anywhere today. They are self-confident as only persons who have thought long and hard about the issues and settled certain things in their mind can be, and they want change.
Listen to Bruce talk about changing the political culture by bringing the opposition into the centre of governance. Peter, for his part, in a public address about three years ago, boldly made the connection between political tribalism and the existence of garrisons. He did so in a manner that went beyond personal culpability into deep analysis and understanding of how things came to be the way they are.
The two men are also alike in some ways that are not helpful to the reform agenda they espouse. They both represent garrisons, the very thing that I have identified as the albatross around the neck of the nation and which they say they abhor. Peter as minister of national security failed to tame the monster of crime, ending his tenure with a net increase in homicides. Bruce commissioned a study of the causes and solution to crime and violence, and left the most politically unpopular but potentially effective recommendations out of the JLP manifesto.
But they are proud and well-intentioned men who do not want to leave the political stage with their record sullied . and they need each other.
Bruce in particular needs Peter at this time. His bold ideas for political reform will resonate more with Peter as leader of the opposition than with some of his own who reduce everything to political contest. I believe Peter will cut Bruce some slack, so to speak; allowing him to govern on his thin margin in order to stabilise the country around consensus on those things that keep us bound. Whether out of enlightened self-interest or love of country, both are redeemable.
Jamaica is caught on the twin horns of a dilemma - debt and death. So related are the two things even the pronunciation is indistinguishable. The only way out of the malaise is for Bruce Golding to pick up the Roadmap to a Safe and Secure Jamaica which he commissioned in 2006, and for Peter Phillips to pick up the Report of the National Committee on Crime and Violence which was produced in 2001 during his tenure as minister of national security; approach each other and say, let's build a new Jamaica.
The odds are remote that a country would possess two political leaders from opposing sides that are so alike in the essential attributes and with a vested interest in achieving the same ends. If Jamaica is to ever turn around, it is now or never.
The above must be a sick joke. Ja i wish you well (in slavery you will live always).
Comment