I will continue to write ad infinitum—hopefully until someone or some group says enough is enough—about how politicians in this country continue to act arbitrarily with no care about the political consequences of their actions simply because their varied race-based constituencies will continue to put them back into power for that reason primarily, but also for the mutual benefits to be derived from the well-known “You scratch my back and I yours” syndrome.
And why, would I continue to dwell on this theme? Politicians acting arbitrarily is the root cause of many of the problems we must endure, because they are not critical thinkers who are concerned about the nuances of a certain course of action or the policies they make, how, even as a measure may seem necessary, there is need to balance that necessity with its impact upon the people, especially as it points to the negative.
Case in point is this present UTT scenario. People are on the breadline because there seems to be the need for some kind of rationalisation because of diminishing finances which is a reality that is often inescapable.
But are there any contingency measures in place to bring relief to those so affected? Again, what if this rationalisation is perceived to be unfair and discriminatory, as can be gauged from the comments in the media of those affected and has any consideration been given to the academic careers of those students who are victims of this ‘‘redundancy”?
Here, in the context of good governance, is a policy decision that seems revenue oriented with little or no thought about its impact upon the people. What if the policymakers had to fear the political fallout from such indifference? But alas not!
And yet again this callous indifference to the political fall-out arising from a certain course of action is seen in the tirade of a government official against criticism from seasoned professionals over the claim of a “turn around” in the economy. One would expect that in a democracy that healthy debate would arise from policy lines, but instead, what follows is ad hominem at its worst which, in this case, is also irony at its worst, because the official in question chastised his critics for not having the facts when he himself would counter in an emotional outburst about alliances of these professionals with the Opposition, far removed from the “factual evidence” he advocates, to counter his critics.
But here again is a case, considering the dismissive, almost arrogant reply to criticism, of absolutely no care about what the people would say and how they would vent their feelings at the polls.
This is our problem in this country, that there is no united voice to deal with politicians who act arbitrarily because they know that mindless tribal supporters will vote for them no matter what.
I see no hope to counter this evil of race-based voting because of an Opposition which has no moral authority to govern, being advocates of the same kind of politics and guilty of the same kind of mismanagement as the incumbent, of a COP whose leadership is hardly reflective of the populace, and of a socialist bent group who can see no wrong with the Maduro administration simply because it is also socialist, although the people are starving because of this failed ideology.
But is there no hope for the hopeless? In the absence of anything else and staying away from the useless platitudes we often engage in to escape the need for real solutions, I hinted in a previous letter at a possibility where there may be a ray of light in the darkness, the hope of a drowning man clinging to a straw, but such “advocacy” may have been frowned upon and the letter was never published.
So I won’t call a name but maybe there is a candle about to be lit to show us the way out of this darkness.
DR ERROL BENJAMIN
