Elections, the elected, satisfying the people

Over time, disillusioned and embittered by the unresponsiveness of politicians, some question the purpose of elections and the suitability of those elected to serve their needs.

Are we entirely helpless in the face of the apparent insensitivity? Should we look to alternative solutions for addressing deficiencies? In the current circumstances, shouldn’t we commit to the adoption of a widely accepted multi-annual national development plan, crafted by consensus with civil society organisations and all political parties as a pathway to the future? Jamaica did it.

Such an inclusively defined long-term vision, owned by all, could serve as a road map for a fixed period for every government elected in the interim.

Imagine the savings in time and resources, usually wasted by successive governments in uncritically discarding plans of previous regimes.

This changed arrangement would be an expression of participatory governance principles.

Civil society would play a key role in conceptualising, implementing and monitoring such a programme. Moreover, each government would be forced to build on the work of its predecessor, lending the stability so sorely lacking in the development trajectory of the country.

In today’s complex and complicated world, our leaders and representatives must be equipped for the task, fit for purpose. They should be made to qualify for their jobs. All key public institutions list qualifications, including education. Yet, we find that the level of education required of the President, Prime Minister, minister, parliamentary secretary, or representative is undefined.

Shouldn’t individuals attaining the highest positions of State/ government be required to acquire a minimum level of education? Surely, given the importance of their intended responsibilities/ functions, there ought to be some assurance that the individuals called to serve can perform effectively. Qualification may not be only about education, but can also be a proven record in the public or private sector or community service.

It is true that leadership of civil society organisations/trade unions/academia/business is no guarantee of outstanding, or even acceptable, performance in public office but at least it would indicate that all such office holders had exhibited some of the inherent qualities required for the job.

Finally, could we envisage elected leaders signing contracts effectively binding them to a probationary period for a proportion of their constitutional mandate to achieve some aspect of the national development programme? After all, they are State employees.

Performance contracts, with key deliverables based on the national development programme mentioned above, may possibly deter elected leaders from engaging in the time-consuming politics they practise to be re-elected.

These contracts may also dissuade them from making promises they know they cannot keep and that do not align with the national plan. The intent is to measure performance results against set objectives, increasing the likelihood that goals will be met.

Small countries cannot afford to waste time and resources.

WINSTON R RUDDER Petit Valley