Conversations

Once an enemy is declared it is easy to define yourself the protector, the defender of the rights of the downtrodden, and even the moral and other types on all manner of issues that often you actually don’t have fully formed opinions. It is an old-fashioned and short-term leadership style, which one would have to admit can be quite effective in a brief and non-constructive kind of way.

Don’t jump to conclusions and assume that this missive is directed only at those in political leadership. The new head of the Inter-Religious Organisation declared war on the LGBTI community as her first rallying cry, demonstrating, frankly, that she is likely to be as divisive a leader as her predecessor whose vitriol during the child marriage debates seems to have fatally wounded an already unfit organisation.

Why define oneself by being in contention with another way of life? You may not agree with how others choose to live their lives, but to pick on others in order to promote your own choices as being better than others is not just judgmental nonsense but weak leadership.

Imagine a leader who, elevated to a position of influence, could promote an open discussion about discrimination in general. Imagine if the IRO could define itself differently by promoting dialogue between the religious groups represented in its membership.

The South African Council of Churches (SACC) led by Desmond Tutu and others played a significant role in promoting unification and mature political leadership at a critical time in the history of that country. The SACC is an interdenominational organisation operating in a multi-ethnic, multireligious context just as the IRO does here.

Furthermore, the difference between the South Africa context and Trinidad and Tobago was more than the breadth of the divide between the groups, or the depth of the poverty experienced by some. It was largely the wisdom and inclusivity of the leadership that took up the mantle.

So where do we stand on wise and inclusive leadership initiatives in this country? The quick-witted answer is of course: in desperate need of some! Part of the problem could be cultural. We are not a nation of conversationalists. Lots of talkers, particularly in senior positions: the labour movement, business sector, religious organisations, ethnic groups, community councils, political parties, everywhere. We have no shortage of opinionated articulate individuals ready and able to lead the pack. For that matter, there is no shortage either of followers eager to join the pack. What, however, is in short supply are leaders who listen, who contemplate deeply and who are able to take charge on behalf of everyone, in particular those most discriminated against and even those whose support they may find hard to win.

The Prime Minister has invited the Leader of the Opposition to have a talk about “selected matters of national interest.” A laudable initiative on the part of the incumbent and we would certainly welcome a break in the acrimony, but neither of these leaders has invested previously in a relationship that one would imagine could result in a constructive conversation.

A conversation, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is, “A talk, especially an informal one, between two or more people, in which news and ideas are exchanged.” Yet both parties seem to have already set out the parameters of the talk in their public statements.

It is always difficult to rebuild bridges around issues that are politically fraught.