Dear Editor,
I suggested to a friend some years ago that, on the road to ensuring the best leadership choices for our country, the time might have come to look at ensuring that all voters get the chance of being declared capable of analysis and reasoning, by attaching a caveat requiring the passing of a simple but insightful reasoning-ability test.
I suggested to a friend some years ago that, on the road to ensuring the best leadership choices for our country, the time might have come to look at ensuring that all voters get the chance of being declared capable of analysis and reasoning, by attaching a caveat requiring the passing of a simple but insightful reasoning-ability test.
We admitted that this would be probably heretic and most difficult to gain acceptability and implementation in our tunnel-vision political paradigm. We further agreed there's no guarantee that much will change, because polarisation and blind allegiance may still override reason.
Of late these thoughts have come back hauntingly; largely so because of deep reflection on the leadership crisis our country has been faced with for a long time now. The initial thought had its genesis from the belief that it is always best for a country facing critical and pivotal decisions to have its most efficient minds at the helm of its governmental structure. The best minds, however, may not necessarily be employed.
Though usually suggested to be one of, if not the most democratic methods of choosing a government, first past the post elections don't guarantee best choices. This process of choosing members of Parliament, and hence leaders, is inherently flawed. Firstly elections don't primarily embrace natural consensus, so when 51 per cent are winners, an almost equal 49% are losers who may at times have a better solution.
Secondly, as is topical these days, voting is not mandatory; so no interest, no vote. That leaves things up to the "interested" which, in the Jamaican experience, is dominated by a large sector consisting of the least capable of doing the analysis necessary to make proper choices. This sector is usually poorly educated, have a huge subsistence deficit, and generally opportunity-deprived. There is a school of thought that suggests that this may be so by design. Their vote is therefore driven by the lure of possible handouts, which generally only temporarily and inadequately meet the cycle of recurring subsistence needs. Balanced analysis is therefore alienated in these decisions. They think with their bellies and are propelled by the desire for short-term stop-gap fixes. Most needs are never fulfilled, yet hope — buoyed by hunger — springs eternal in the bosom of their deprivation, and so like fish watching their relatives being caught on a hook will await their turn to get caught by the same hook. They therefore become fodder for mealy-mouthed political representatives who only seek to prey on their desperation.
It is impossible to make proper decisions under these conditions. So consequently, a country may from time to time suffer the effects of poor and untimely decisions made by elected leaders who came to office predominantly on the wings of the immediate needs of pandering voters with hungry bellies and itching ears. Effectively, therefore, barring appropriate intervention, we will always run the risk of having pretenders at the pinnacle of power. We keep the status quo at our own risk.
Vernon B Willie
Linstead PO, St Catherine
Voters should pass a reasoning test
-->
I suggested to a friend some years ago that, on the road to ensuring the best leadership choices for our country, the time might have come to look at ensuring that all voters get the chance of being declared capable of analysis and reasoning, by attaching a caveat requiring the passing of a simple but insightful reasoning-ability test.
I suggested to a friend some years ago that, on the road to ensuring the best leadership choices for our country, the time might have come to look at ensuring that all voters get the chance of being declared capable of analysis and reasoning, by attaching a caveat requiring the passing of a simple but insightful reasoning-ability test.
We admitted that this would be probably heretic and most difficult to gain acceptability and implementation in our tunnel-vision political paradigm. We further agreed there's no guarantee that much will change, because polarisation and blind allegiance may still override reason.
Of late these thoughts have come back hauntingly; largely so because of deep reflection on the leadership crisis our country has been faced with for a long time now. The initial thought had its genesis from the belief that it is always best for a country facing critical and pivotal decisions to have its most efficient minds at the helm of its governmental structure. The best minds, however, may not necessarily be employed.
Though usually suggested to be one of, if not the most democratic methods of choosing a government, first past the post elections don't guarantee best choices. This process of choosing members of Parliament, and hence leaders, is inherently flawed. Firstly elections don't primarily embrace natural consensus, so when 51 per cent are winners, an almost equal 49% are losers who may at times have a better solution.
Secondly, as is topical these days, voting is not mandatory; so no interest, no vote. That leaves things up to the "interested" which, in the Jamaican experience, is dominated by a large sector consisting of the least capable of doing the analysis necessary to make proper choices. This sector is usually poorly educated, have a huge subsistence deficit, and generally opportunity-deprived. There is a school of thought that suggests that this may be so by design. Their vote is therefore driven by the lure of possible handouts, which generally only temporarily and inadequately meet the cycle of recurring subsistence needs. Balanced analysis is therefore alienated in these decisions. They think with their bellies and are propelled by the desire for short-term stop-gap fixes. Most needs are never fulfilled, yet hope — buoyed by hunger — springs eternal in the bosom of their deprivation, and so like fish watching their relatives being caught on a hook will await their turn to get caught by the same hook. They therefore become fodder for mealy-mouthed political representatives who only seek to prey on their desperation.
It is impossible to make proper decisions under these conditions. So consequently, a country may from time to time suffer the effects of poor and untimely decisions made by elected leaders who came to office predominantly on the wings of the immediate needs of pandering voters with hungry bellies and itching ears. Effectively, therefore, barring appropriate intervention, we will always run the risk of having pretenders at the pinnacle of power. We keep the status quo at our own risk.
Vernon B Willie
Linstead PO, St Catherine
Voters should pass a reasoning test
-->