Monday, October 26, 2009

Spare a Thought for Politicians- Response to Responses

Article

Veranda Issues
Mr. Hurst’s response to my article, could at best, only be described as nothing but sundry noises. Comments aren’t remotely related to the central thrust of my article. One is left wondering what understanding of my thesis, if any, preceded his diatribe- I think none.

Issues raised by Mr. Astaphan are more on track, though sometimes digressing into the peripheral. Prior to addressing emerging themes that relate directly to the seminal article, three concerns (about the discussion to-date) are appropriate:

  1. Armchair References: As a social science researcher/theorist, I’m typically saddened, if not curious, when practitioners invoke the armchair handle. This cliché must be exposed and discouraged for what it usually is- a strategy designed to minimize criticism/review; and to carefully preserve preferred status quo ignorance. It is far more helpful to realize that the critical intersect between theory and practice is what advances our social order. In other words, theory informs practice and practice expands theory- they’re healthily correlated, inextricable and symbiotic. Suggesting otherwise by way of armchair labeling is cheap yesterday’s politics born of diffident reasoning.
  2. Frequent/Liberal Naming of Politicians/Places: While I appreciate the desire to give practical anchors to an idea/argument - How certain are we this indulged temptation isn’t counter productive to add value; a hurt more than a help? I suspect it is:
    1. Naming a person/place is more often an unfitting distraction (from the advanced idea) than an appropriate crutch or aid for thinking.
    2. Readers are quite capable of making their own appropriate linkages according to prevailing conditions in their individual Island States.
    3. Persons/places so named are often either unfairly advantaged or unfairly disadvantaged in comparison to related others not named.
    4. It tends to discredit debate and suggests an agenda less salutary to exchanging noble ideas. Instead, it portends inkling for bacchanal, promotionalism or pandering- under such conditions my heart has no desire to stay.
  3. Absence of Critical Voices: It would help if this important discussion is assisted through more direct participation by political practitioners as well as more voices from among public readers (as players in the political process). Perhaps they will yet quickly join in; unless of course their submissions have been made but are not yet posted.

Sitting Room Issues
A spinoff debate from my article (Spare a Thought for Politicians) surrounds whether the prevailing negative perception that the public holds about politicians (in general) is fact or fiction.  To Dr. Newton it is more than fiction, closer to fact; Mr. Astaphan contends it is fictitious- grounded in public gullibility and misinformation. It is important to note from the outset, my article does not address whether or not the public’s perception of politicians is fact or fiction or for that matter right or wrong. Rather, my article is centrally dedicated to examining and accounting for the ways in which behaviors by politicians reflect ways in which the public itself grooms and elicits these behaviors from politicians. But we will come to that in the next section. Let’s return to the public’s perception of politicians: fact or fiction; right or wrong?

Arguments are won or lost based on how they’re framed; so hair splitting is important. While Dr. Newton’s position seems clear, I’m not sure re Mr. Astapahn’s position. Is he saying there is no public perception that holds politicians in negative light or that what is claimed to be a public perception is really only a minority perception? If this is the claim, he simply needs to confront the overwhelmingly universal data; no discussion is warranted. On the other hand (from what I gather) Mr. Astaphan appears to hold:
  • Yes, there is a prevailing negative public perception of politicians in general; but that’s all it is- a perception and not a fact. And further,
  • This perception is fed by public misinformation & gullibility; and does not reflect the formal record (charges, documented media exposures etc).  And further,
  • To the extent this perception is fact, it is really factual only about a minority of politicians; not the majority.
These arguments are valuable in what they affirm; but are misleading in what they subtly deny. Here are some considerations for further fleshing out this matter.
  1. Perceptions may not always equal facts; but they certainly do not equal fiction- Instead, they equal reality! The prevailing public perception that politicians in general are not to be trusted- is a perceptual reality that must be reckoned with.
  2. Ubiquitous references about our dysfunctional political culture suggest public disgust with politicians is closer to perceived reality than fictitious sentiment. Further, it helps to remember culture is shaped by endemic and systemic behavior of the majority; not by arbitrary actions of the minority. A notion of a broken political culture is commentary on perceived behaviors of the majority of politicians, not the minority.
  3. Politicians themselves understand and accept this reality. Why else do they (including Caribbean ones) pitch themselves to the public in caricatures that suggest “I’m one of you; I’m not one of them; I can be trusted.” Even when this posture cannot be adopted without causing greater suspicion, the pitch then becomes: “ok, I may be a politician; but at least I’m a different kind- one that can be trusted”. This positioning/imaging is meant to redress realities of generally held public perceptions re politicians and their image.
  4. The difference between the factual record and the prevailing perceived reality is explained only in part by gullible misinformation. An equal important reason is anecdotal experiences of the public- as individuals and communities that interact with politicians. Often these lived out realities do not make their way to the formal record (for a myriad of interesting reasons) but do in fact shape the perceptions of the public in whose memories they are lodged.  Beyond personal and community contact with politicians, people lives are also directly affected by actions that politicians take. What all this means is that even when we account for the effects of deliberate misinformation (and factor them out), there is still significant validity to the perception people hold re politicians based on the direct & indirect impact politicians have on their lives.  Let us also remember public comment and other forms of expression (e.g. calypso etc) do not only shape, but also often serve to echo public sentiments (already held).

Kitchen Heat Issues
What my article (Spare a thought for politicians) highlights and centrally explores is this phenomenon:
  • Interesting ways in which public postures help groom dysfunctional behaviors in politicians. The extent to which these behaviors by politician’s then work against the good of the public- causing the public to frown on politicians; and develop sentiments of distrust towards them-  effectively putting all blame on politicians. 
Grasping this phenomenon is key to understanding that my article really addresses the two-edged sword that is our present political culture.

What I am suggesting is that politicians in the main hold good organic moral values and possess upright individual ethical constructs; but that their untoward behaviors are invoked as strategies for defense, success or advancement in what is a vicious political order. In the face of this glaring phenomenon (in which good people appear forced to do bad things in order to succeed) I have called upon the public to spare a thought for politicians.

Rightly understood my article was asking the public as political participants to accept greater responsibility for things as they presently are in the world of politics by pausing and asking: wait a minute! What have we been doing to cause these people (politicians) who are in the majority good at their core to conduct themselves in bad ways in order to win our support and endorsement?  I suggested the public can begin to answer this question by examining three ways in which they help to contribute to what I term the participative dysfunction that is politics.
  1. The irresponsible psychological dependencies they place on politicians- which only encourage offered lies and unkeepable promises (better known as platforms, manifestoes, and other fancy sounding names)
  2. The complicit, implicit & explicit endorsement/enjoyment of a dog eat dog political culture which encourages the by any means necessary desperation on the part of politicians.
  3. Unreasonable stipulations on politicians that are counter to their legitimate human interests- which only serves to increase their short term avarice and/or likely dependence on special interests
Put another way, the net byproduct of the phenomenon that describes our present politics is not simply that we get the politicians we vote for; but that we get to vote for the politicians we help create and groom. I believe it is in this light, Mr. Astaphan rightly asked in his initial response: who then is to blame, the public or politicians? I’ve argued that both the public and politicians are at once culprits and victims alike- equally, and no less so. It seems the more appropriate question ought to be: What is the way out; and how do we begin to change the course of things?

Reading between the lines, whereas Mr. Astaphan does not discount public awareness and education in redressing the dysfunctions in politics, he seems less hopeful and therefore less inclined to go that route. Instead, he appears to more heavily favor additional legislation as the primary conduit/savior for reducing/reversing indiscretions by political practitioners. Unfortunately, history is not on his side here. Whether in the Caribbean or further afield, increased legislation seldom curbs excesses by political operatives. What emerges in fact has been the following:
  • Unenforceable policy- often put together for inoculation effect; with deliberate loopholes
  • New crafty circumventions that maintain the status quo
  • The sum result: politics as usual; with an ever increasing apathetic public
Certainly, Dr. Newton and I favor a focus on public reorientation and empowerment as a preferred approach for undoing dysfunctions in the political sphere. If at the end of the day politics is about securing public endorsement; then it seems terms and conditions both set and rewarded by the public are likely to cause culture change in the body politic more so than policy set by politicians.  There is an increased role for the media, tertiary education bodies, and NGOs to play in grassroots enlightenment initiatives; and certainly a need for community centers to become universities of regular civic interaction and directional accountability by publics & politicians. A corollary to this must of necessity include resetting new mental models by politicians- mindsets that cherish openness and trust as new ways of interacting with the public.  One correspondent (via email) also suggested the need for mandatory training for politicians in areas such as statesmanship and nobility- a worthy idea indeed.

Let me say in closing, I do not think exclusivity of a preferred path is the way to set about repositioning and re-culturing politics in the region. A confluence of the best ideas should be packaged and pursued. The one thing that ought to be non-negotiable is our commitment/resolve to doing politics differently to how it is presently practiced.

Dr. Raymond S. Edwards
President/CEO, MOHDC
http://www.mohdc.com

Raymond Edwards, Ph.D. Organizational Psychologist & Minister of Religion: is an international development consultant and executive Leadership behavior specialist.

No comments:

Post a Comment