THE EDITOR, Sir,IT IS so much easier to hire than to fire. Therefore, in an increasingly competitive world, the integrity of the selection process and the validity of the candidate it produces become very critical. Because of this, I have developed a preoccupation with the study of perception versus reality, especially in the political context. One would be surprised at how fascinating an exercise this can be, particularly with respect to people's perception of who is, or who would be a 'good' politician, as opposed to the reality of what the requirements for becoming one really are.
In the process of choosing politicians we seem to be pre-programmed to favour a stereotype that bears little resemblance to any composite that would emerge were we to stop, think, and then write down five or six prerequisites for this very critically important job. It brings to mind the paradox associated with the perception of genius. If we were to ask some typical second or third formers to draw a representation of a genius, chances are they would draw a diminutive image, wearing bi-focals: almost certainly charisma and loquacity would be furthest from their minds. However, other characteristics, such as the ability to get things right and to get things done, would quickly spring to their minds, along with the capacity for thinking, and to be a solver of difficult problems. Yet, in reality, we tend to associate the articulate with the brilliant, with scant regard for any ability to get things done, or to get things right. As a result, when those of us who still exercise our franchise assess our political representatives the ability to 'talk the talk' will, most often, mask the inability to "walk the walk".
The failure of the system to perform has caused a growing majority to become cynical and apathetic. This group has exited the system, perhaps realising that a master plan, an inquiry and a study are not indicative of real work in progress, but ends in themselves: mere tools to remove vexing problems from the front burner. In the minds of this group change, if any, will only be incremental. So, why vote?
This apathy, combined with the reality of decreasing party membership, and an explosion in corruption, has exposed a dangerous weakness in our political system. We do not vote in any direct way for party leaders and, most importantly, we do not vote to elect the Prime Minister. Those who do are the party delegates, who are neither representative of, nor do they represent the Jamaican public. Once selected as party leader, and even more so, as Prime Minister, this person assumes awesome powers. Without term limits in today's dynamic, WTO-run, and uni-polar world, the potential damage that an incompetent Head of State with almost unbridled power can bring to bear on Jamaica's economy, is frightening.
However, despite these real and certainly unacceptable shortcomings, my greater concern is with the corruption that is so rife in Jamaica today. With big drug money so all-pervasive, party delegates, being such a small group, could easily be bought with a relatively small bankroll. We were recently exposed to the ease with which delegate count could be unscrupulously increased by simply paying dues for inactive groups. How easy would it be, therefore, to buy delegates in order obtain the all powerful position of leader? And we must remember that corruption is no less immoral if the financing comes from the 'legitimate' businessman, instead of the drug don. This real and present danger is, to me, a much larger problem than any perceived or real incompetence of existing or past governments. This ability to hijack our democracy with relative ease is far more likely today than yesterday, which produced a generation that was restrained by morality and noble ambition.
If nothing else justifies constitutional reform, this does.
I am, etc,
DOUG HALSALL
doug.halsall@aiswebnet.com
