The new normal

The slowly disappearing significance of tact and diplomacy within both the local and global landscape is giving way to a ‘new normal’ of ‘political incorrectness’ under the guise of honesty. This certainly has been and continues to be the case in the many colourful displays we have seen both locally and globally of language and action under the umbrella of political campaigning. Does diplomacy and tact take a spontaneous backseat during such times? Is this the new normal in tact and diplomacy? The many global examples are playing before our very eyes, the statements by Global leaders, the intergenerational vacuum, the emphasis on being brutally honest and sensationalism of saying it as you see it, and the simplifying of the norms of what is and should be acceptable standards of language and behaviour. One simply has to look at the recent passing of Cuba’s former Prime Minister, Fidel Castro, in some global quarters there was joy and celebration, whilst in others there was great sorrow and grief.

The divergence of tact can be seen in the responses to his death by the leadership of the United States, with president-elect, Donald Trump stating: “Today, the world marks the passing of a brutal dictator who oppressed his own people for nearly six decades.” The statement went on to add, “Fidel Castro’s legacy is one of firing squads, theft, unimaginable suffering, poverty and the denial of fundamental human rights.” Current President Obama, meanwhile, stated: “At this time of Fidel Castro’s passing, we extend a hand of friendship to the Cuban people.

History will record and judge the enormous impact of this singular figure on the people and world around him.” One of these statements identifies the current trajectory of diplomacy; whilst the other demonstrates what classic diplomacy looks like. Daunting? In Trinidad and Tobago, we have, noted over the years the consistent decay of political banter being passed as ‘platform talk.’ However, many times we tend to forget that such ‘platform banter,’ comes with a fair share of post banter impact. What of the thought and consideration of and for the families, friends, and supporters of the proposed political target? What of the fact that the postplatform banter lives on forever in the archives of our news vestiges? While I do agree that much of the platform banter adds a sense of humour and ‘spice’ to the campaigning process, we can only trust our inbred sensibilities to remember that not only are we appealing to the proposed electorate, but we are also appealing to those younger persons who may be listening and looking on, with aspirations of their own, seeking such figures to emulate and pattern themselves after.

When all is said and done, and the political dust is cleared, a simple question need be asked: do I wish the nation’s children to speak as I spoke?