THE EDITOR, Sir:
IT IS important that we take the time to soberly examine the broader implications of Delroy Chuck's tribute to Andrew Phang. It is important because Mr. Chuck is an aspiring national leader and also because the decision he made is not uncommon amongst our political leaders.
Mr. Chuck explains that he was caught on the horns of a dilemma, that his constituency demanded that he should echo their feelings and mirror their passions. So the question arises; who is leading whom here? To be sure, it was politically expedient, and clever, for Mr. Chuck to accede to the demands of the community. However, such decisions do not augur well for the long-term socio-political development of the country as a whole.
The strength of character which Jamaica now needs from our national leaders was not demonstrated. But in seriously hurting himself on behalf of his constituency, Mr. Chuck may have created unshakeable, us-against-the-world loyalties therewith. Can garrison communities be so created?
It is arguable that it is this continual weak-kneed capitulation to the baser instincts of the people by politicians which accounts for the leadership vacuum which prevails in present day Jamaica.
Also, note that this type of leadership is not confined to politics. This backwardness is also reflected in our music, language, culture, etc.
Shouldn't leadership interpret, refine and channel the energies and desires of the governed rather than be a mere conduit for their raw passions?
So taking the broader view, let us revisit the question once again; should political representatives be Ministers of government? What do you think?
I am, etc.,
ERIC PLAYFAIR
Mandeville P.O.,
Manchester
