Dear Editor,
The recent political reverses suffered by Raymond Pryce, Lloyd B Smith, Dr Christopher Tufton, and Sharon Hay-Webster seem to be a good sign that some positive changes are occurring within our political landscape. Surely, our political aspirants are now starting to learn a new truth: their national profiles are no guarantee for political advancement.
The days when people can be parachuted into a constituency as complete strangers and then expect to win on the basis of who they are, are coming to an end. The experiences of these losing aspiring political representatives have shown that, increasingly, politicians will have to earn the votes that they want.
There were a few disturbing analyses in respect of the races that some of these failed politicians entered. We were being led to believe that, as some of them were so qualified and had such national profiles, the voters who did not vote for them were making a big mistake. Some people also felt that the young and bright politicians were being rejected, and this cannot be good for our political development.
However, we cannot seek to want our cake and eat it at the same time. We are always being told that democracy is what we all want. So why should some of us want to insult the democratic right of the voters who have decided that these politicians are not wanted -- for whatever reason?
I was particularly upset by the insinuations by some that one particular failing politician should have won as he is much more intelligent and certainly have a greater national profile than his competitor. No doubt the voters who voted for the supposedly 'dumb' winner must have felt slighted, to say the least.
Some of us always say that these delegates are simply diehards of their parties who will always vote the way they are told. Some of us always say that they need to grow up and vote with their brains. So why are some of us now angry that these delegates have decided to start voting with their brains and reject people they cannot relate to?
I had said that this development is a good thing. It means that delegates and other voters are now thinking before they vote. It will also mean that those wanting to enter the political arena can no longer take people for granted; they will have to start developing the kind of relationship that will earn them respect. This development will spur something else that is positive: It will cause voters to consider the issues more and the personalities less.
So, no doubt, the political reverses of these politicians will help the development of our democratic process. Finally, at least, some delegates are beginning to think.
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
Politicians can no longer rely on national profile for power
-->
The recent political reverses suffered by Raymond Pryce, Lloyd B Smith, Dr Christopher Tufton, and Sharon Hay-Webster seem to be a good sign that some positive changes are occurring within our political landscape. Surely, our political aspirants are now starting to learn a new truth: their national profiles are no guarantee for political advancement.
The days when people can be parachuted into a constituency as complete strangers and then expect to win on the basis of who they are, are coming to an end. The experiences of these losing aspiring political representatives have shown that, increasingly, politicians will have to earn the votes that they want.
There were a few disturbing analyses in respect of the races that some of these failed politicians entered. We were being led to believe that, as some of them were so qualified and had such national profiles, the voters who did not vote for them were making a big mistake. Some people also felt that the young and bright politicians were being rejected, and this cannot be good for our political development.
However, we cannot seek to want our cake and eat it at the same time. We are always being told that democracy is what we all want. So why should some of us want to insult the democratic right of the voters who have decided that these politicians are not wanted -- for whatever reason?
I was particularly upset by the insinuations by some that one particular failing politician should have won as he is much more intelligent and certainly have a greater national profile than his competitor. No doubt the voters who voted for the supposedly 'dumb' winner must have felt slighted, to say the least.
Some of us always say that these delegates are simply diehards of their parties who will always vote the way they are told. Some of us always say that they need to grow up and vote with their brains. So why are some of us now angry that these delegates have decided to start voting with their brains and reject people they cannot relate to?
I had said that this development is a good thing. It means that delegates and other voters are now thinking before they vote. It will also mean that those wanting to enter the political arena can no longer take people for granted; they will have to start developing the kind of relationship that will earn them respect. This development will spur something else that is positive: It will cause voters to consider the issues more and the personalities less.
So, no doubt, the political reverses of these politicians will help the development of our democratic process. Finally, at least, some delegates are beginning to think.
Michael A Dingwall
michael_a_dingwall@hotmail.com
Politicians can no longer rely on national profile for power
-->