Who has the country’s best interest at heart? This is the question we should be asking ourselves as Dominicans right now, where ever we live, be it in the Diaspora or at home.
It is a crucial time in our history and development in terms of where we want to go as a nation. It is very important for us to stop and ask ourselves that question, rather than ask it later, when it is to late, and refer to the old saying, “To late shall be the cry”. I hope this shall not be the the case with us.
In seeking the answer to this question, let us start with the people who are our leaders; let us remember they become leaders because of our support to them and our belief in them, and of what they have professed to us. In return we have entrusted them to do the right things on our behalf, to lead us. Now, what criteria or tools we use to determine if these so-called leaders deserve our trust to lead us?
Do we use good judgment when it comes to choosing leadership or are we just throwing our common sense to the wind?
The electoral process has taken place. We still have two parliaments, one that is truly elected by the people, and the other one called the Peoples Parliament. Which parliament has Dominica’s interest at heart? Can you imagine MA Dominique saying, “Please people, what is wrong with you all? Do we need two Parliaments, well I see times has changed papa, good luck to you all”
As Dominicans, we all have differences, politically, home and abroad. Let us not have our differences destroy our country. I think we should use our differences to build our country rather than divide it. Let us question our leader’s motives when being led.
Leaders forget you egos. At the end of the day Dominica is bigger than you. Work to build, not to divide. As one of our patriots Masterville Labad Campaign theme years ago would say, “Time will tell”.
– Gary Shillingford
is this the gary who lived in Toronto, On ?
“Who has the country’s best interest at heart?” good question. I believe Dominicans of whatever political hue, be they at home or abroad are more sophisticated politically today, than say twenty years ago.
The advent of the internet and cellphone communication has allowed ordinary citizens instant access to the political debate, and the issues that affects their lives. Its a sign of a healthy democracy that whatever the issues that divides the political parties, Its the people who will always have the final say.
I side with Winston Warrington on this one,” It is the egos of the opinionated that propels them from the sidelines and into action to affect change” they do indeed have the dynamism and vision to lead.
I do not believe we are a polarised nation politically. we are simply an impatient nation..
Winston, your comment defining the ego is somewhat a folly , your quote “Ego is what propels opinionated people from the sideline into the field of action, showing boldness, defiance and confidence in their perspective to bring about change,” wait a minute, isn’t that what dictators are? There are plenty examples, Lenin and Hitler, sure a change came about and what happened to the meek,they were not leaders, they were lead by people with egos who took advantage of their meekness. That is why when people are called to choose leaders they should not be lead by emotions, but by reason, and one way is to question the leader motives, remember Ego is the biggest enemy of humans. What’s needed is humility.
With regards to the role of Government, I do not think the Government Primary role is to Protect, Protect from what and whom. It’s Primary role is to carry out the wishes of the people who elect them to form the Government. You have seen where Governments have been caught laying to it’s People saying the are protecting them. I just hope we can have a meaningful dissuasion.
Gary, your argument is very interesting. Groups unite for security – a prime requirement for individual self realization; a government represents the united general will of the people and whereas I will not deny that other needs of the State form part of its collective responsibility, my position is that security (protection) is primary. Security – freedom from hunger, fear, disease, etc.
Secondly, ego is a perception of self. Are you assuming that one cannot be bold , defiant and confident without being a dictator? Was Maurice Bishop a dictator?, or is Obama for that matter? Some people have the perception that they are the best and go on to prove it. Humility is great – after victory. As Frederick Douglas said, “power concedes nothing without demand”, do you think he meant “humble demand”?
Finally, I wrote of the meek not being inclined to lead. There has never been a leader who did not think
highly of himself. Do you truly believe that Winston Churchill was any less egotistical than Hitler or John F Kennedy than Nikita Kruschev?Buddhists provide no security for their people because of the daily effort to nullify the inner self (ego).
This is where i disagree with you. It is not the government’s job to see that people are free from hunger. Actually it is because of government regulation and government action you find hunger, fear and disease.
And if Frederick Douglas didn’t demonstrate various levels of humility during his fight we not know of him today. He was stern, but he had to be able to convince the nation as a whole that what was going on was wrong. The only way to do that is through humility. Look at current day Sharpton, Farrakhan and Jackson; those two are, in no way, respected by the masses. They have lost all credibility because of their ego. They lack the ability to use their ego to lead, and humility to persuade. The most notable leaders have had the experience and skill to know when to exercise humility and when to show their ego.
And to answer your questions – Bishop was of the Marxist school of thought as is Obama and Skerrit, and in my mind the only way to achieve the results that they seek is to be dictators. No society will willfully enslave themselves to the government without force.
Andy, your points might be well intended but your references are historically unfortunate. You have mentioned,Sharpton, Reggie Jackson, Maurice Bishop,Farrakan,Obama,Roosevelt Skerrit (all black men) as dictatorial either in character or inclination; most leaders are humble after they have achieved their goals whether they are of one race or the other.
There are leaders who are humble before falling short of their intended goals; this is why I stated victory first,then humility – as in Frederick Douglas. Did Christ in all his humility save the world from sin? Did Mahatma Ghandi save the Hindus of India from the oppression of the caste system? Did Neville Chamberlain save England from German aggression? and Dalai Lama? a very humble leader.
You make valid points, but i think we will have to agree to disagree.
In my mind victory is not just based on the anecdotal evidence immediately after the battle. Victory is is, in my opinion, the modification of hearts and minds in the long term. Hitler was very successful in terrorizing Europe, and ridding most of Western Europe of Jews, but to this day you can not get, other than small factions, to support his cause. This is the same for all of the people that I’ve noted above, especially Bishop.
On the other hand, whether you believe or not, Christ was victorious, Ghandi was victorious, and the Dali Lama have been victorious.
What the current administration in D/ca and the US are doing are creating situations that will force the citizens to be dependent on the government. Then they come in with “assistance” (the Security that you speak about), and the citizens have to accept it because they need to live. In my opinion this goes against man’s natural desire to be free. Any opposition is shot down. And this is what this article speaks to: the way the current administrations vilify people who express opposing ideas of points of view. We see this behavior in Venezuela, Cuba and the former USSR to name a few. These places are all lead by dictators.
Like i said we will have to agree to disagree.
Very interesting thoughts though. I’d love to pick your brain.
No one really cares about the Country, they only care about what they can get, their own selfish wants, otherwise many things would have been done differently.
Time will indeed tell…..i agree 150%
I take issue with this wandering rhetoric. What do you mean by “so-called leaders”? These people were elected by the citizens of the country and chosen for being most capable of representing their interests and aspirations.
Then you refer to the ego of the leaders. Ego is what propels opinionated people from the sidelines into the field of action, showing boldness, defiance and confidence in their perspective to bring about change. The meek do not lead and cynics do not act.
Many are conflicted on the role of government. The primary responsibility of the State is to protect its citizens; all other functions deemed supportive in substance may be initiated by an active ctizenry whose motives are congruent with those of a legally elected administration. If we are so concerned about the inability of the government to carry out its mandate, we should demand constitutional reform. All matters of significant interest could be introduced to the legislature by a constitutional provision for popular initiative and “so-called” leaders could be removed from office before election time by popular recall.
Winston, i will agree that the role of government is to protect its people, but i think the word protect is left to interpretation by the administration in power. This is why its better to list the specific role of government. In my mind that would be: build and maintain schools, roads, and law enforcement/military. Government should keep out of everything else.
Every problem that a society experiences is always a result of government involvement.
In this instance we see many power hungry socialists taking on more then they can chew. The only outcome for such a strategy in governing is: a government that is spread to thin, a people that is heavily dependent on government, and finally extreme poverty.
There is no doubt in my mind this is the direction Dominica is heading.
This editorial is simply saying, or at least what i have gotten from it, that the people should feel free to dialogue. And it is through dialogue we will be able to better ourselves.
Edeson, Green. Dont worry you all time is coming soon, Green have a US visa so he can run at any time when he get you Edeson in a mess.
it would serve you guys much good if you can put aside pety-politic and work for the common good of the country. Can’t you see the the PM dont take you all on, he is going about doing the work of the country.thats what we the people vote him for.
isnt Andy correct?
dependancy syndrome?
But may I ask you?”Who has Dominica’s interest at heart?”
Have you been looking down at the wrong end of a French or Venezuelan gun?”Who has Dominica’s interest at heart?”
I and many other Dominican and other Caribbean Fishers have been and its not by any means a nice experience.”Who has Dominica’s interest at heart?”
Did not the cabinet set the precident by stopping the coast guard from prosecuting the French Fishermen who were caught blatantly raping our resources? “Who has Dominica’s interest at heart?”
What happened to the Venezuelans who were caught with very large sums of $?
Will the coast guard stop them again? Do we Dominican fishers feel safe going out to fish at nights or even alone at day? Is there any garantee that we will not be shot while trying to feed our family/Dominica?”Who has Dominica’s interest at heart?”
What is happening to the villagers of layou? Is the health and livelihood of an entire village being sacrificed for the interest of a French man?
Who is getting the multi million dollar non open/negoitiated tendered contracts….?”Who has Dominica’s interest at heart?”
has >2/3 of our territorial waters been given away?and to whom?
Is our Geothermal resource being given away? and to whom?
The list goes on
Yes the question truely is
“Who has Dominica’s interest at heart?”
This is a very positive opinion.
Its a very good question.
What i would like to see is more open dialogue, but i think as government becomes more and more entrenched in our lives we lose the ability to remain objective about our government as a people.
Good question, but these are questions to be asking before an election, not just after one.
It will be another 5 years (all else being equal) before opinions or voices heard on this topic can be democratically expressed.