Over the past two weeks, we have witnessed incessant commentary on the supposed lack of fitness of Mrs. Christine Kangaloo for the office of President.
Initially, there was a feeling that there was no need for a president. This position was quickly corrected when the legal ramifications of the post were explained. But it’s easy to get caught up in specific personal attacks and miss the damage being done to our nation.
Instead, we should have taken some time to reflect on the path we want our country to take in the future. We must focus on race and privilege and how these affect our institutions.
It is important to distinguish between the attacks on Vandana Mohit, then mayor of Chaguanas, and those on Christine Kangaloo. It is clear that in our local situation, we are quicker to criticize and abuse women than men. Our actions seem designed to exclude women unless men approve of them.
A person’s character, individual choices and environment can create problems of a personal nature. Such persons can take action to resolve their situations. But a public figure has no similar solution since their difficulties are created by the institutional framework in which they operate.
Actions by individual public office bearers may not improve matters if institutions need to be changed. For example, how could Ms. Kanglaoo oppose constitutional arrangements that force her to conform to the wishes of the cabinet? How can we change the Constitution by criticizing its actions?
But this dilemma did not prevent our “anger industry” from taking off. We are no longer content to disagree with others on national issues. We should humiliate and slander those with whom we disagree. We must dehumanize them.
As we saw in the last two weeks, the attacks used every possible forum and were relentless. Carelessly, politicians and commentators tossed around words designed to mock and belittle. The term “dictator” appeared in several parts. The other side was painted as “evil” and lying.
There has been no attempt to unravel what the Constitution envisioned and the actions taken. Instead, it was a deliberate, misguided campaign to change people’s minds and behaviors.
Where do we think this kind of rhetoric will lead? Are we forgetting that there were fears of political violence in the last General Election? Are these fears lessened or increased by the current discussions?
(Parliament Copyright Office 2023)
When, as a result of this continuous coverage, opinion is confused, then we argue that it is the Government’s fault. Or we slip into a place where we claim both sides are equally to blame. But what is the effect of this on our political life?
The constant effort to polarize every incident makes national success less attainable. A house divided cannot stand. Personal sniping will reduce the number of able-bodied people who volunteer for public office.
As Jacinta Ardern, New Zealand’s prime minister, reminded us this week: “Politicians are people. We give everything we can for as long as we can. And then it’s time.”
The nation loses. Personal attacks can make running for public office unattractive and dangerous. Why should any sane person volunteer to serve in the face of daily bouts of withering?
If we target our women in public life, does the country win? Once we allow the attacks to go unchallenged, the diversity of our country will have no voices to represent them. We will be the poorer for this exception.
Public humiliation reduces the ability to contribute or participate fully in all social, political, economic and cultural aspects of society as an equal. Is this what we want? Do we want good candidates to second guess public service decisions?
As implied by some commentators, is Rishi Sookhai a traitor to the Hindu community? Whatever became of finding an equal place for “every creed and race”? Why do we attribute negative motives to his election, but not to those who serve the opposition?
When individuals remain silent, they lose their opportunity to share their views, but more importantly, the community loses the opportunity to consider another point of view. As a result, the quality of the dialogue deteriorates. Louder voices dominate, which may not have any meaningful contribution.
(Parliament Copyright Office 2023)
We have a new challenge with internet searches. Anything you may have said in any forum can be tracked. We can rely on people going back in time to dig up the statements, leaving out the context.
The only good candidate now is one with no personality or opinion. Or at least one that denies their beliefs until resolved. The alternative is to be like Trump: to have a harsh barrage of insulting statements that overwhelms the listener.
In this mess, the media has a role to play. She must decide what to do in this age of misinformation. Will he stand up and hold the saboteurs accountable? Will it protect the weak or give way to the despicable among us?
Sadly, the performance of the last two weeks does not bode well for our democracy as the hunger for clicks seemed to supersede truth-telling.
Christine Kangaloo is the least of our worries. Our most important problem is how we deal with critical issues in our country. We have a long way to go.
