Leading by example in a post-bling era

Lawrence Alfred Powell, Contributor

On Trevor Munroe's morning programme this past Monday, in our discussion of the People's National Party's (PNP) symbolic failures in selling the 'pricey cabinet' and 'pricey vehicle' moves to the public, we hit on an intriguing possibility. Perhaps the public's disgust over ostentatious perks of office, and extravagant government expenditures on rent for buildings, etc. may be the first signs that popular sentiment is now shifting, that we are entering a post-bling era.

In economic hard times, in an age of conscious belt-tightening to rein in out-of-control debt, sooner or later there comes a new cultural symbolism of shared sacrifice. With this new ethos, in turn, come new norms of what is fair or unfair, and what is noble or disgusting behaviour.

So whereas the PNP flaunting its political prowess after a landslide election might previously have been admired as a show of strength to tackle the nation's problems, in the post-bling era, it is more likely to be viewed as arrogant, even unpatriotic. The symbolic context of what these things mean to people has shifted. In light of the changed economic times, the bravado of appointing a large Cabinet appears unfair - it fails the shared-sacrifice test.

The same, of course, applies to the audacity of proposing pricey cars for ministers. In other times, this might not raise eyebrows. But it comes with ill grace at a time when many Jamaicans are struggling with how they and their families will get by in leaner times.

HISTORICAL PARALLELS

As I thought about this, a number of historical parallels came to mind - examples of a post-bling ethos as developed in other societies and historical periods. For good examples of a non-ostentatious, non-extravagant leadership model, one has to start with the ancient Greek philosopher Plato's model of the philosopher king, which he described in The Republic, his primer on the art of effective governance.

According to Plato, an ideal, humble, non-corrupt leader would be both wise and frugal in his or her use of public resources. To accomplish this, it was necessary for those who rule to renounce bling and, instead, live a monk-like, ascetic lifestyle of voluntary poverty, devoted entirely to promoting the good of the people. Plato argued that this would ensure wise, uncorrupted leadership.

A similar ethos was expressed in recipes for benevolent leadership among the ancient Chinese. Lao Tzu, a contemporary of Confucius, admonished in the 6th century BC that "on the day the Emperor is crowned, or the three officers of state installed, do not send a gift of Jade and a team of four horses … . When the court is arrayed in splendour, the fields are full of weeds, and the granaries are bare. Some wear gorgeous clothes, carry sharp swords, and indulge themselves with food and drink; they have more possessions than they can use ... . (But the wise leader) wears rough clothing, and carries the jewel in his heart."

In the 20th century, Mohandas K. ('Mahatma') Gandhi - whose personal possessions were limited to his sandals, eyeglasses, eating bowl and a prayer book - also reflected this ethos of humility, shared sacrifice, and voluntary poverty. He practised these qualities as a method of purifying his moral leadership and promoting symbolic solidarity with the plight of the masses.

PHILOSOPHY OF GOVERNANCE

It was this ethos that made it possible for him to construct a successful Indian independence movement to end British colonial rule. In Young India, Gandhi poignantly describes the post-materialist values underlying a non-bling philosophy of governance:

"We should be ashamed of resting or having a square meal so long as there is one able-bodied man or woman without work or food. It must be held to be a crime to spend money on … luxuries so long as millions of people are starving. We would not have a feast in a family if a member was about to die of starvation. If (the nation) is one family, we should have the same feeling, as we would have in a private family."

All of these provide significant clues as to what a post-bling ethos, rooted in the nation's spiritual, not its consumerist, values, might look like in Jamaica. Prominent leaders and opinion influentials in the public and private sectors could, as Gandhi was fond of pointing out, inspire the people and lead a 'revolution by example' in public values - moving from an ethos of materialistic excess, to one of purification, self-discipline and shared sacrifice for the greater good. Public leaders, then, need to initiate this process themselves and "be the change they want to see in the world".

How is it possible for a nation that (despite recent census declines) remains one of the most religiously inspired in the world to be placing so much emphasis on materialistic bling paraded before others' eyes? And how is it possible to expect the people to begin renouncing that, in the name of frugality and debt reduction, if the leaders and public influentials do not first lead the way themselves? The prime minister is clearly a deep believer in the example of Jesus Christ, whose disciples lived humbly in the midst of an arrogant, power-crazed Roman empire. So she knows what she must do.

DIFFERENT DIRECTION

Imagine, for a moment, that when it took office back in January after a heady election win, the first acts of the new PNP administration had been to reduce the size of the Cabinet, to consolidate and combine some of the existing ministries, and to voluntarily reduce the salaries of all government ministers - declaring a new post-bling era, necessary for solving the nation's debt crisis and putting the nation back on its feet again financially.

And let's further imagine that - like Jesus, Gandhi, and Evo Morales in Bolivia - the PM had resolved to wear humble clothing to all public functions, and had asked other ministers to please do the same - forgoing more flamboyant expensive dress until such time as the nation's finances improved for everyone. Think of the political capital that this would have garnered for PNP, armed with a new vision, for new era.

Similarly, suppose that the PM and ministers had resolved to make do with less-than-optimal transportation, until conditions improved for the nation generally. Think how much stronger the sense of solidarity would be by now between PNP and the people, and how much more impressed International Monetary Fund negotiators would be.

It is still possible. There's absolutely no reason why the PM (whose courage and emotional wisdom I admire very much, by the way) could not tomorrow morning click her heels three times, wave the national flag, and declare to the country that we have now entered a new post-bling age, an age of Jamaican self-redempton, and that she and the nation's ministers intend hereafter to lead by example in this quest. It would have been better to have done this back in January, but it's definitely not too late.

Lawrence Alfred Powell is honorary research fellow at the Centre of Methods and Policy Application in the Social Sciences at the University of Auckland, New Zealand, and former senior lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and lapowell.auckland@ymail.com.