Tweet
Mark Wignall
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Some weeks ago I watched one of the televised debates among the Democratic candidates in the US seeking their party's presidential nomination, and was highly impressed by how each candidate presented his or her viewpoint on pertinent issues in US policy.
In just about the same time frame, I tuned in one morning to one of our local talk shows and heard both political candidates from South-East St Mary; Harry Douglas, PNP MP and Tarn Peralto, the JLP caretaker/candidate discussing key issues facing the rural constituency. Unlike in the Democratic party debates where there was little perceived difference in the level of the grasp of issues among the seven candidates and their ability to articulate them, while listening to Harry Douglas and Tarn Peralto, I felt that there was a world of difference between the two.
In plain language Harry Douglas sounded like a relic of the past who needed to be introduced to retirement. Where Peralto sounded like where the future ought to be and stuck to discussing key issues and the problems inherent in bringing workable solutions to the plight of the people of the constituency, the PNP MP Douglas was into cheap, archaic politics, apparently the most important lesson he has learnt since 1989.
It then struck me (all over again) that if in our politics, the mediocre can stand up beside those considered competent and both hope to do so on equal footing, then prior to any elections, it is the duty of the system to bring out not just the policy solutions from those shouting out to us, but also it is our duty to insist that we separate the sheep from the goats at the earliest possible stage.
An even more pressing issue in our political culture is the choice we usually make when presented with sheeps and goats. Under the principles of a parliamentary democracy, the intelligent and the not-so-bright have rights to make themselves available for political office and likewise, all adults in the society, sharp, dim-witted and average, all have a say in making their choices. It is the way of the world.
My problem with our present politics is that since the days of Norman Manley, there has been a somewhat deliberate attempt to lionise mediocrity, to the point where, at present, there are many in the population who actually believe that what we now have is as good as it will ever get. In this destructive acceptance of a poverty of talent and a belief that the sensible and the bright and the go-getter are all charlatans, we are, if we allow ourselves to become mired in this downward spiral of "turd-world-ism", doomed to remain where we have been for too long.
Among the 14 Caricom countries, Jamaica's cumulative economic growth in the 10 years to 2006 ranks close to the bottom at number 12. Just recently the Economist newspaper said of Jamaica that it is a country where its leaders have consistently failed the people. All of this, yet in 1957 Norman Manley was saying (and it was so) that Jamaica was poised to becoming an economic force to reckon with.
At this time when an election is upon us, it is our duty to hear and watch the potential leaders as they take a grand stage and face the scrutiny of the people. Over time both the PNP and the JLP leaders have been facing their captive audience of diehards where mostly matters palatable to the converted are spoken of. Now we need to move it from the bus stop and the fish place and take it up another notch. We need a national debate.
We need to discuss early childhood education, job creation for those most economically threatened, the next thrust in agriculture with a view to "out-of-the-box thinking", reinventing the police force, crime prevention and reduction, the justice system, health care, the environment, regional integration in key areas, foreign policy, etc.
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller needs to reconsider any decisions she may have made in facing the Opposition leader on equal footing on a platform of one height. Indeed, the fact that the Jamaican people are not already demanding this probably means that we don't expect anyhing much from either PNP or JLP, or we will just roll with the direction of the wind.
The prime minister is not a friend of debates. She faced one in 1992 and was demolished, as expected, by PJ Patterson. Those who may have believed that she has grown since should wake up to the fact that by now she ought to be ready to face another debate. It has been many years since, and at this time she should not experience the jitters she had in 1992.
The ability of a potential leader to display the abilities needed to show us that he or she is the best that a country can throw up to lead us into anything but an uncertain future, is a moral and ethical right that should be ours to demand by written legislation. Granted, we are not yet on that steep gradient of the development curve as far as intellect is concerned. Even with that, with the ruling PNP said to be the party of "intellectuals", it is the PNP who should be demanding a leadership debate.
And even if some people believe that I am trying to set up the prime minister by exposing her to a flogging in any debate with JLP leader Bruce Golding, I say to them, what is there to fear in a debate, especially in light of the many "successes" the prime minister has been claiming over the last year?
This country needs more direction rather than a few loud announcements of policy successes. Policy successes in a world where the trend, especially in this region, is toward positive growth, ought to be taken as a given. We want our leaders to discuss how they plan to take us to that stage where we can begin to believe in ourselves once again. We need them to bring us to that point where we no longer see ourselves as mere Xs on a ballot, having some use only once every five years.
We need our leaders to believe not only in their abilities to get the job done - we need them, through leadership and motivation, to take us there in that great trek to our social and economic betterment.
We need to hear from them. Not the shouts and the taunts and the booing of "the other side". Just the hard issues, the problems and the solutions.
We need the debate between both leaders. There could be no better time for it.
observemark@gmail.com
Thursday, July 05, 2007
Some weeks ago I watched one of the televised debates among the Democratic candidates in the US seeking their party's presidential nomination, and was highly impressed by how each candidate presented his or her viewpoint on pertinent issues in US policy.
In just about the same time frame, I tuned in one morning to one of our local talk shows and heard both political candidates from South-East St Mary; Harry Douglas, PNP MP and Tarn Peralto, the JLP caretaker/candidate discussing key issues facing the rural constituency. Unlike in the Democratic party debates where there was little perceived difference in the level of the grasp of issues among the seven candidates and their ability to articulate them, while listening to Harry Douglas and Tarn Peralto, I felt that there was a world of difference between the two.
In plain language Harry Douglas sounded like a relic of the past who needed to be introduced to retirement. Where Peralto sounded like where the future ought to be and stuck to discussing key issues and the problems inherent in bringing workable solutions to the plight of the people of the constituency, the PNP MP Douglas was into cheap, archaic politics, apparently the most important lesson he has learnt since 1989.
It then struck me (all over again) that if in our politics, the mediocre can stand up beside those considered competent and both hope to do so on equal footing, then prior to any elections, it is the duty of the system to bring out not just the policy solutions from those shouting out to us, but also it is our duty to insist that we separate the sheep from the goats at the earliest possible stage.
An even more pressing issue in our political culture is the choice we usually make when presented with sheeps and goats. Under the principles of a parliamentary democracy, the intelligent and the not-so-bright have rights to make themselves available for political office and likewise, all adults in the society, sharp, dim-witted and average, all have a say in making their choices. It is the way of the world.
My problem with our present politics is that since the days of Norman Manley, there has been a somewhat deliberate attempt to lionise mediocrity, to the point where, at present, there are many in the population who actually believe that what we now have is as good as it will ever get. In this destructive acceptance of a poverty of talent and a belief that the sensible and the bright and the go-getter are all charlatans, we are, if we allow ourselves to become mired in this downward spiral of "turd-world-ism", doomed to remain where we have been for too long.
Among the 14 Caricom countries, Jamaica's cumulative economic growth in the 10 years to 2006 ranks close to the bottom at number 12. Just recently the Economist newspaper said of Jamaica that it is a country where its leaders have consistently failed the people. All of this, yet in 1957 Norman Manley was saying (and it was so) that Jamaica was poised to becoming an economic force to reckon with.
At this time when an election is upon us, it is our duty to hear and watch the potential leaders as they take a grand stage and face the scrutiny of the people. Over time both the PNP and the JLP leaders have been facing their captive audience of diehards where mostly matters palatable to the converted are spoken of. Now we need to move it from the bus stop and the fish place and take it up another notch. We need a national debate.
We need to discuss early childhood education, job creation for those most economically threatened, the next thrust in agriculture with a view to "out-of-the-box thinking", reinventing the police force, crime prevention and reduction, the justice system, health care, the environment, regional integration in key areas, foreign policy, etc.
Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller needs to reconsider any decisions she may have made in facing the Opposition leader on equal footing on a platform of one height. Indeed, the fact that the Jamaican people are not already demanding this probably means that we don't expect anyhing much from either PNP or JLP, or we will just roll with the direction of the wind.
The prime minister is not a friend of debates. She faced one in 1992 and was demolished, as expected, by PJ Patterson. Those who may have believed that she has grown since should wake up to the fact that by now she ought to be ready to face another debate. It has been many years since, and at this time she should not experience the jitters she had in 1992.
The ability of a potential leader to display the abilities needed to show us that he or she is the best that a country can throw up to lead us into anything but an uncertain future, is a moral and ethical right that should be ours to demand by written legislation. Granted, we are not yet on that steep gradient of the development curve as far as intellect is concerned. Even with that, with the ruling PNP said to be the party of "intellectuals", it is the PNP who should be demanding a leadership debate.
And even if some people believe that I am trying to set up the prime minister by exposing her to a flogging in any debate with JLP leader Bruce Golding, I say to them, what is there to fear in a debate, especially in light of the many "successes" the prime minister has been claiming over the last year?
This country needs more direction rather than a few loud announcements of policy successes. Policy successes in a world where the trend, especially in this region, is toward positive growth, ought to be taken as a given. We want our leaders to discuss how they plan to take us to that stage where we can begin to believe in ourselves once again. We need them to bring us to that point where we no longer see ourselves as mere Xs on a ballot, having some use only once every five years.
We need our leaders to believe not only in their abilities to get the job done - we need them, through leadership and motivation, to take us there in that great trek to our social and economic betterment.
We need to hear from them. Not the shouts and the taunts and the booing of "the other side". Just the hard issues, the problems and the solutions.
We need the debate between both leaders. There could be no better time for it.
observemark@gmail.com
Comment