The politician versus the columnist: The role of moral obligation

Dec 03, 2010 Features / Columnists, Freddie Kissoon

I heard from inner contacts in the Alliance For Change (AFC) that Mrs. Sheila Holder is puzzled by some frequent criticism of her from this page. We finally met inside the GCC pavilion two Thursdays ago at the rally against domestic abuse of women.
The first word from my mouth was to allay any fear Mrs. Holder has that I have targeted her. I offered her a little story about the former Vice-Chancellor of UG, Dr. James Rose. It was generally said in society and at UG that I had set out to confront Dr. Rose. All and sundry believed that I was inflexibly opposed to Rose.
I gently said to Mrs. Holder that my relationship with two of Dr. Rose’s predecessors were far more turbulent. What was the point? That Rose was just another UG administrator I was critical of. I wanted Mrs. Holder to know that there are hundreds like her since 1988 (the year I became a media operative) who believed that I had mischievously singled them out for criticism.
The role of an independent critic is to expose the wrongs committed by people against other people, especially when those injustices are perpetrated on the poor and powerless. Matters take on a frightening twist when those violations are committed by governments.
Then there is another angle. The independent critic is supposed to criticize those who fail to live up to the trust people repose in them. Policemen cannot and should not hurt innocent citizens. They cannot make monetary demands on the public.
Priests should not sexually manipulate their parishioners. Doctors should be professional in their treatment of patients. Magistrates cannot abuse the authority the law invests them with. Politicians should be faithful to those who look to them to fight for their rights.
Mrs. Holder’s attitude as she explained it is that a person like me, a columnist, has more latitude to criticize and confront than she as a politician.
I agreed with her but insisted that she was wrong to tailor her duties to society based on her conceptualization of what a politician does. Where does that leave the concept of moral obligation? As we began to talk, hands and voices were interrupting us and I suggested to Mrs. Holder that we talk uninterrupted on another occasion and I will prove to her that her politics is wrong. She agreed to the rendezvous.
Here, in this column, is a tiny summary of what will be my argument. I don’t want to focus on Mrs. Holder for the rest of this article so I will deal with issues. Politicians feel that they walk a tightrope in life. If they are too candid they risk the possibility of gaining one constituency but losing another in the process.
It is for this reason that the PPP will never admit that it is Indo-centric, and the PNC will deny that it is Afro-centered. Both are fearful of losing support from the other half of the Guyanese society.
The delusion politicians have is that they conceive of electoral politics and moral obligation as antithetical. If you criticize the NIS or the Georgetown Public Hospital, then those workers there will not like your party. So it is best to stay quiet or be diplomatic. But what about moral recognition of the sacred values of life? The case of two PNC politicians comes to mind immediately.
Clarissa Riehl and Deborah Backer were approached by a saddened parent about the peremptory expulsion of her daughter from Mae’s School for possession of a cell phone. Both women are lawyers. Both knew the school’s edict was illegal. Both did nothing. The parent came to me. I did a column on the violation. This is what moral obligation is. Riehl and Backer were not insensitive. They didn’t act because politicians have to tread carefully.
I believe they failed to honour their obligation to that crying mother. I can hardly embrace a party that has people like Backer and Riehl in their leadership.
The same goes for Mrs. Holder. What politicians have to understand is that they may gain ten votes by an action and will lose another ten by those who expected better of them.
Ask me which party I admire four years ago, and I would have said the AFC. But at the moment my conscience has become a force that is burdening me. I cannot approve of many of the policies of the AFC.
Examples are many of the stances of Mrs. Holder herself and the AFC’s open faith in Parliament the past five years.

Latest News

The politician versus the columnist: The role of moral obligation

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

The wait is over, all roads lead to KMTC for their Grand Boxing Day...

Xhiya Hercules – flipping the script towards...

Road Warriors, Bent Street, Team Cruel &...

Deol maiden hundred outshines Matthews’ as...

Moraikobai village two days football competition...

BCB thanks cricket fraternity for strong support...

Features/Columnists

Merry Christmas, Ya Filthy Animals!

Breaking the Chains of Poverty: A need for political will

Christmas – reality and possibility

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]

The politician versus the columnist: The role of moral obligation

Share this:

Related

Similar Articles

The Glenn Lall Show | December, 2nd, 2024

Follow on Tik Tok @Glennlall

THE BLUNT OF THE DAY

Sports

Features/Columnists

Publisher’s Note

Weekend Cartoon

Bridge Watch

Demerara Harbour Bridge

> Berbice Bridge […]