Dear Editor,
I note the comments made in the editorial of the
Jamaica Observer, Tuesday March 1, which spoke to concerns over “missteps” of Messrs Andrew Holness and Audley Shaw in recent public pronouncements. For the purposes of this letter I will focus on the editorial perspective regarding Holness’s comments regarding his intention to modify the convention of allowing outgoing government ministers to purchase motor vehicles that they had been using during their term in office.
The editorial argues that the “...administration must cultivate and master the art of diplomacy and compromise, albeit without surrendering authority”. Further, the editorial noted that the comments were “ill-timed”. While I understand the thrust of the editorial, I disagree that Holness’s comments were ill-timed or that they violated the principles of diplomacy and compromise.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of the editorial, but it seems as though the suggestion is that the comments arose out of an attitude and spirit of triumphalism. The victor is communicating clearly to the hapless vanquished who is in control. If this is so, I think that it is an inaccurate interpretation. This is not an act of vindictiveness or of a man being mean-spirited.
Holness is assuming office at a time of significant socio-economic challenges, in addition to a climate characterised by apathy, cynicism and disaffection for the political class. In this environment, his communication (oral and symbolic) has to address those who are indifferent and disconnected, as well as those who support him. His political opponents will vilify him no matter what. He is showing, in an astute manner, that he understands the messages that he has to communicate to the various audiences.
First, by highlighting the principle that he will lead a Government that will be good stewards of the resources at its disposal. Thus, in the specific instance of the use of motor vehicles, he is positing that what the former ministers drove will have to suffice. I am certain that not all of the members of the incoming Cabinet will agree, but the prime minister-designate has spoken.
Second, he is signalling that his Administration will not be run on the basis of business as usual. This is important, and will send a message to all at the various levels of government, including the boards and executive leadership of statutory organisations and agencies. As a country, we need to rise above the “what’s in it for me” mentality that seems to influence the action of many who are appointed at corporate governance levels within the overall public service.
Thirdly, Holness is demonstrating that he understands the influence of the post that he will soon assume once sworn in. This reflects how he has matured and grown and become comfortable with himself as leader. A prime minister cannot be everywhere, and certainly cannot do everything. What he can do (and will be able to do more of as he develops further) is to influence behaviour and general performance by setting standards and guidelines that matter for all; starting with those at the top. In this one small act he shows that he understands that the judicious use of the equivalent of the “bully-pulpit” can achieve a great deal.
He will not convince all, but he will continue the journey of communicating in judicious and astute ways to the cynical, disaffected and apathetic in society at large. Throughout this recent general election campaign Mr Holness demonstrated the capacity to be on-message; in this most recent episode, he is continuing in that vein.
Dameon Black
dameonab@gmail.com
I note the comments made in the editorial of the
Jamaica Observer, Tuesday March 1, which spoke to concerns over “missteps” of Messrs Andrew Holness and Audley Shaw in recent public pronouncements. For the purposes of this letter I will focus on the editorial perspective regarding Holness’s comments regarding his intention to modify the convention of allowing outgoing government ministers to purchase motor vehicles that they had been using during their term in office.
The editorial argues that the “...administration must cultivate and master the art of diplomacy and compromise, albeit without surrendering authority”. Further, the editorial noted that the comments were “ill-timed”. While I understand the thrust of the editorial, I disagree that Holness’s comments were ill-timed or that they violated the principles of diplomacy and compromise.
I may be wrong in my interpretation of the editorial, but it seems as though the suggestion is that the comments arose out of an attitude and spirit of triumphalism. The victor is communicating clearly to the hapless vanquished who is in control. If this is so, I think that it is an inaccurate interpretation. This is not an act of vindictiveness or of a man being mean-spirited.
Holness is assuming office at a time of significant socio-economic challenges, in addition to a climate characterised by apathy, cynicism and disaffection for the political class. In this environment, his communication (oral and symbolic) has to address those who are indifferent and disconnected, as well as those who support him. His political opponents will vilify him no matter what. He is showing, in an astute manner, that he understands the messages that he has to communicate to the various audiences.
First, by highlighting the principle that he will lead a Government that will be good stewards of the resources at its disposal. Thus, in the specific instance of the use of motor vehicles, he is positing that what the former ministers drove will have to suffice. I am certain that not all of the members of the incoming Cabinet will agree, but the prime minister-designate has spoken.
Second, he is signalling that his Administration will not be run on the basis of business as usual. This is important, and will send a message to all at the various levels of government, including the boards and executive leadership of statutory organisations and agencies. As a country, we need to rise above the “what’s in it for me” mentality that seems to influence the action of many who are appointed at corporate governance levels within the overall public service.
Thirdly, Holness is demonstrating that he understands the influence of the post that he will soon assume once sworn in. This reflects how he has matured and grown and become comfortable with himself as leader. A prime minister cannot be everywhere, and certainly cannot do everything. What he can do (and will be able to do more of as he develops further) is to influence behaviour and general performance by setting standards and guidelines that matter for all; starting with those at the top. In this one small act he shows that he understands that the judicious use of the equivalent of the “bully-pulpit” can achieve a great deal.
He will not convince all, but he will continue the journey of communicating in judicious and astute ways to the cynical, disaffected and apathetic in society at large. Throughout this recent general election campaign Mr Holness demonstrated the capacity to be on-message; in this most recent episode, he is continuing in that vein.
Dameon Black
dameonab@gmail.com