Greetings,
I listened to a call-in programme in the Caribbean on which there was a panel discussion about the response, and accountability, of government to the people. Good, thought I, as that is what democracy is all about. However, some members of the public who called in to the programme to voice their views, gave me cause for concern.Their tone did not seem to express a genuine interest in the business of accountability by government in a democratic society, but rather that the government was not being 'subject' to their bidding. I guess some folk are experiencing difficulty in understanding what government is about, and how to engage it. Moreover, there is still the belief by some that there is still room for the colonial 'cutchey' (forgive me if my spelling of the word is incorrect.). This means, it is considered necessary to satisfy this ancient custom of subservience in order to be met with approval, even in the 21st century. What was more disturbing was the impression of a distinct air of superiority towards the powers that be underlying the stance of these callers.
Why am I going down this road?
History has a habit of repeating itself. According to my parents, this was the type of behaviour they had to contend with in their youthful days on their Caribbean island when it was a Crown Colony, and which continued after they had left it. It supported a false belief that if what is to be done, put forward, or presented, is not satisfactory to 'those who matter the most', which did not necessarily mean the people per se, then nothing will go on.
"The government is the method of management used by the state". (The Pattern of Government, Rust 1969, p.2)
Government is not in place to serve the few to the exclusion of everybody else. It is not a
'Domestic Servant', or to be manipulated by 'the chosen' to the detriment of the state. Many a conflict has taken place around the world because of these misguided notions.
I will explain part of the above by referring to history passed on to me.
I use the term 'Domestic Servant', because for some folk, the only reference they have in order to communicate with The Government, authorities of the state, and certain individuals at home and from abroad, is the condescending manner used towards the employees of the former islandwide 'Domestic Service Industry' in the days of Crown Colony, and the early days of Independence. This intrinsic behavioural attitude of 'subservience to be paid to...', is the root cause of agitation, and is an impediment to the conversation that should be taking place to bring about response, and accountability from the government, that some members of the public crave.
So, to those who still have this thinking pattern, I suggest you...
Forget it.
Bury it.
Get over it.
Accept that the former days, and the way it was, won't be coming back, EVER!
...and instead...
Add to your thinking, RESPECT (which in turn will be mutual).
Come up with something constructive, practical, and sensible, with which to engage government in the 21st century, and will be of benefit to the state.
Response and accountability by government may be forthcoming, if the level of engagement is in keeping with today's world.
Peace
Grace
Tuesday, 10 March 2015
CHANGE has not eluded some of us after all!
Greetings,
Interesting development.
Finally, it has dawned on some politicians that the historically infamous 'cooking exercise' of long ago (and whatever form that may take today), propaganda, hysteria, large crowd gatherings with trumpeting from the platform about issues and potential policies which have no substance, will not a future government make in the 21st century!
The realization has kicked in that one actually needs credible PLANS, and SOLUTIONS, something in the kitty to back it up, and an informed public, in order to make any kind of impact in the daily lives of the electorate.
My, my, my, it is is never too late for a shower of rain, eh?
I wonder how our friends, 'the old timers' over there in their 'Bubble Kingdom' are taking all this? After 50+ years of the same old, same old, these new fandangle ideas must be quite a shock to the system. Bless their hearts!!!
Here is a grand opportunity to break with the past. I wonder how it will turn out?
Anyhow, I say congrats to the brave who have decided to move forward, but as the old saying goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
Peace
Grace
Interesting development.
Finally, it has dawned on some politicians that the historically infamous 'cooking exercise' of long ago (and whatever form that may take today), propaganda, hysteria, large crowd gatherings with trumpeting from the platform about issues and potential policies which have no substance, will not a future government make in the 21st century!
The realization has kicked in that one actually needs credible PLANS, and SOLUTIONS, something in the kitty to back it up, and an informed public, in order to make any kind of impact in the daily lives of the electorate.
My, my, my, it is is never too late for a shower of rain, eh?
I wonder how our friends, 'the old timers' over there in their 'Bubble Kingdom' are taking all this? After 50+ years of the same old, same old, these new fandangle ideas must be quite a shock to the system. Bless their hearts!!!
Here is a grand opportunity to break with the past. I wonder how it will turn out?
Anyhow, I say congrats to the brave who have decided to move forward, but as the old saying goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating".
Peace
Grace
Monday, 2 March 2015
Defending Human Rights: the approach is the key
Greetings,
This post is not directed at any human rights group, organization, or persons who have an interest in human rights. It is not intended to criticize or promote any case. It is about what type of approach, I believe, should be given consideration before defending citizens who have experienced injustice by the State.
The rights of citizens do not exist in a vacuum. Their rights exist within a political, judicial, social, educational, cultural, and economic context. To advocate for, and defend human rights, it is important that it is dealt with objectively, that there is a thorough knowledge of the workings of government, its language, how to communicate with it, and awareness of the possible implications that may arise, if the correct approach is not taken. Diplomacy and tact, is one approach, which should be carefully thought out, prior to dealing with issues on human rights. The interests of the complainant, and all other parties concerned, should not be jeopardized by disrespect, lack of decorum, subjective perspectives, and self-interest.
Choosing the correct approach should be the fundamental principle when defending the rights of the citizen, defending the rights of the citizen within the rule of law, and to encourage public support. An area of particular importance, is the involvement of external organizations when they are invited to support a case, and/or to present findings, in whatever the human rights case may be. That task becomes difficult for them when the original presentation of the case to a government was in an atmosphere of hostility, and contention. No case can achieve the desired result when the approach is inappropriate and negative.
This is not suggesting that the rights of the citizen should not be defended as one thinks fit. On the contrary, one is entitled to their opinion on how to proceed with a matter. However, it is the approach, its implementation, and the effect of it, which is a contributory factor to the outcome.
If human rights is to defend the rights of the people, let the people be the focus, and the approach taken be in their interest. This is more productive than blurring the issues, creating a tussle to score political points, irrelevant posturing, and useless manoeuvring.
Peace
Grace
This post is not directed at any human rights group, organization, or persons who have an interest in human rights. It is not intended to criticize or promote any case. It is about what type of approach, I believe, should be given consideration before defending citizens who have experienced injustice by the State.
The rights of citizens do not exist in a vacuum. Their rights exist within a political, judicial, social, educational, cultural, and economic context. To advocate for, and defend human rights, it is important that it is dealt with objectively, that there is a thorough knowledge of the workings of government, its language, how to communicate with it, and awareness of the possible implications that may arise, if the correct approach is not taken. Diplomacy and tact, is one approach, which should be carefully thought out, prior to dealing with issues on human rights. The interests of the complainant, and all other parties concerned, should not be jeopardized by disrespect, lack of decorum, subjective perspectives, and self-interest.
Choosing the correct approach should be the fundamental principle when defending the rights of the citizen, defending the rights of the citizen within the rule of law, and to encourage public support. An area of particular importance, is the involvement of external organizations when they are invited to support a case, and/or to present findings, in whatever the human rights case may be. That task becomes difficult for them when the original presentation of the case to a government was in an atmosphere of hostility, and contention. No case can achieve the desired result when the approach is inappropriate and negative.
This is not suggesting that the rights of the citizen should not be defended as one thinks fit. On the contrary, one is entitled to their opinion on how to proceed with a matter. However, it is the approach, its implementation, and the effect of it, which is a contributory factor to the outcome.
If human rights is to defend the rights of the people, let the people be the focus, and the approach taken be in their interest. This is more productive than blurring the issues, creating a tussle to score political points, irrelevant posturing, and useless manoeuvring.
Peace
Grace
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)