Why we stay so?
Cassandra's Candid Corner
* Now, I know that it might be considered unfair to be always harping on the inadequacies of and blaming politicians for the woes with which we are daily confronted. But let's face it: that profession with a few notable exceptions ("90% of the politicians give the other 10% a bad reputation" - Kissinger), is the pits. In terms of credibility, our politicians must rank (as they do in the US of A) behind lawyers and used-car salesmen. (Interestingly enough, a poll in the USA revealed that doctors were way down at the bottom of the ladder of those professions with the quality and power of inspiring belief.) The leader of a party in Parliament once, when braced with the wretched perception of politicians by the public, equated political practitioners with garbage collectors - they are not likeable, but someone's got to do the job. Well, my first reaction was that such logic can only come from a politician. That argument sounded like a cop out, an easy way to circumvent responsibility. A more in-depth look at that funny sounding parallel between a garbage collector (sorry, sanitation engineer) and a politician reveals that though we bad mouth the fellas at every turn, we ourselves don't want to take on the job and do it right. We, the masses, who represent the norm would much prefer managing an enormous low mein at one of the hole-in-the-wall restaurants on Noodle Boulevard (Sheriff Street), than managing the country. Some of us don't even want to manage our homes and families, and we run away from both at the first sign of crisis. Also, we don't vote with wisdom born of analysis of the contestants and their track records. So, we lay back with a laissez-faire attitude and allow those who want the job to carry on merrily. But who is it that wants the job? What sort of person wants this position of power so badly that he/she would undermine years of friendship, that he/she would neglect family life, that he/she would prefer to be a demagogue, that he/she would submerge principles and be unconscious to shame? Well, I don't have to be a psychologist to understand that the motivating factor in a person aspiring to be a politician is an obsession with dominance. That is what forges a potent political personality. Power is the essence, and the pursuit of this intense craving for deference makes politicians pose as experts in everything. They make you believe that they are all-purpose sociologists, geostrategists, natural scientists and futurologists, and high priests of humanity - all in the quest of adulation or even puerile notoriety that all sensible men try to avoid. Recognising the above to be self-evident, we should be choosing leaders from the ranks of the normal, namely from exactly those groups of people who have no desire to dominate, but rather those who genuinely want to improve the lot of their peers - without the snake oil and false and unctuous charm. Ah well, I have already resigned myself to the fact that I will not live to see us attain the maturity to elect people who understand that government is a trust and the elected are but trustees, and both the trust and the trustees are there for our collective benefit. * Is it not quite amazing that quite intelligent people looking at the same object can have totally different perspectives? I read a magazine article the other day in which scientists who were studying climate change and the health of the planet's basic biological systems were painting a truly grim picture. In that same magazine, a couple of pages further on, the economists were portraying optimism. Of course, they were looking at economic indicators and were not paying much attention to what is happening to the global economy's natural support systems. Actually, the terrifying aspect of all this is the conviction by the affluent West that their perspectives are right and all encompassing. And their think-tank gurus feel that they are smarter than everybody else. Well, I'll tell you how smart they are. Not one of them (not Kissinger, not O'Connor, not Albright) predicted the fall of the Soviet Empire and the speed of the decline. Not one of their economic wizards had foreseen that gold would reach US$250.00 an ounce (just the opposite: four years ago they predicted that gold would top the $650.00 mark). The see-far men lauded the Asian tigers one day, and before their spittle was dry, the collapse had set in. Can anyone tell me what would happen if China were to ever reach the US level of auto ownership and oil consumption? Well, for one thing they alone would need 80 million barrels of oil per day. But the world only produces 64 million. It is therefore clear that the Western development model won't work for China - or for India, or for the other 2 billion people in the developing world. The fossil-fuel-based, auto-centered, throw-away economy that is exemplified by the US of A is not going to be viable for the developing countries. If we carry that thought a step further - it won't be beneficial, in the long run, for the industrialised countries either. Ah well, let's look on the good side. When all this fossil fuel based industry produces global warming, the icebergs will melt and the ocean levels will rise, and my house and land in South Georgetown will increase in value, since it will be beach front property. Hurrah! *I went to a wedding last week. The costumes of the invitees were fabulous - but often so inappropriate and physically challenging. The US Ambassador wore a short-sleeved red plaid shirt which would have been great for the Rupununi Rodeo, but, Christ, not at the most expensive and lavish wedding Guyana has ever seen. Then there were these over-dressed Guyanese women. Why we stay so? We don't dance unless we're drunk and we wear the most uncomfortable things possible. A word of warning to the ladies: high heels lead to a miserable old age of crippling arthritis, since they put an additional 25% strain on the knee and hip joints. Enough is as good as a feast. 'Til next week
|