Dear Editor,
This first year has been an extended honeymoon, promises of the moon, and the sometimes superstitious circumstances surrounding the full moon. Taking all of this in stride, an attempt is now made though broad strokes to identify what differentiated the new from the old, and then what associated the two. The differences follow first.
For starters, the leader is cool, cold, near yet distant. There is an austere simplicity and cultivated imperturbability. Contrast this to the hostility, vulgarity, and impecuniosity of standards and character that once was. If indeed a fish rots from the head, then the old disintegrated and sank and the new coalesces and swims. This is different and refreshingly so. For the record, there are occasions, particularly during raging controversies, when the leader must step forward more timely to man the bridge and steady the troops before matters spiral.
A second development (difference) during the past year is no credible concrete claim of corruption has been levelled against the incumbents. There has been no stealing, no outright falsehoods, no egregious malfeasance. Some processes are somewhat tighter with limited visibility. They are better than what went before with an interest in much more. The days are still young, and with the rush of business, individuals will be tempted. However, thus far, there are only the usual unsubstantiated whispers from the usual undermining sources, but nothing that holds water.
The next difference is that (in all seriousness) there is no Dr Roger Luncheon; absolutely no one and nothing that even comes close. The weekly luncheon fare of the bland, the blank, the blues, and the blather are gone and (sometimes) missed. If only for the entertainment value, I recommend that a replacement (there can be no equivalent) be found quickly. A word of caution: the candidate has to be more than bilingual; he or she must be multilingual in the nuances of the English language alone.
Fourth, it is encouraging to notice that none of the new arrivals have succumbed to illness. That is, the dreaded foot-in-mouth disease. Joseph (“No apologies”) Harmon came dangerously close to being infected, but the bed rest of isolation, and the tonic of reflection both contributed to quiet rehabilitation. The absence of that sickness separates.
In the same vein, it is encouraging to observe that no matters of (public) personal debauchery or misconduct have been affixed to the leading lights in the new administration. Think drunk-driving, assault, roadside brawling, or noise pollution via karaoke exploits. I mean the new guys are so clean, they are boring.
Elsewhere, the police force is on duty, and in pursuit of perpetrators, as opposed to the past heavy emphasis on its own priorities. Society is still guarded, but there is growing confidence. The city is drier, cleaner, and brighter in parts; noise levels have diminished around and about, including in parliament. One must wonder if the pitch in the National Assembly had liquid accelerants. Citizens will settle for these small beginnings, while they wait for meaningful reform, inclusive of constitutional, police, taxation, and the general bureaucratic, among many others.
Overall, there are differences in tone and temper. True, some courtesies and appreciation had to be wrenched from the standard-challenged, but a decent commencement nonetheless. Now for some similarities that link the newcomers with the old-timers.
Editor, right from the first bell, let me say that the similarities are unacceptable. They introduce gnashing of teeth.
There are too many pre-1992 political troglodytes back in the picture, and behaving as though it is still pre-1992. I recognize loyalty (and helpful works), but place them anywhere other than where they are currently. Do not foist these has-beens on the public. Sinecures should be located in less visible, less influential places. This is too much akin to hunter gatherers given BMWs to pursue iguanas (or gold). They are like Chuck Jackson (“I just don’t know what to do with myself”). The electorate deserves being saved from this misery, and so do those grizzled veterans exhumed.
Then, there is real disturbing similarity with reports of quiet purges. Guess what kind? Replacement was the euphemism I used before for what is occurring in lower profile stations, be they about jobs or contracts for services. This reminds (and reeks) of post 1992 Foreign Service cleansing. Now look where all of that led.
Moreover, in terms of other sensitive senior appointments, I behold the malnutrition and pangs of a spreading meritocratic famine. Why are so many of the questionable retained? And why are so many companions of the Peter Principle placed above their heads? As with the old, the emphasis seems to be on homogeneity. That might uphold the family business for a time, but is fatal for good governance. Somebody should tell the public what can project from such unclear, unsettled, unimpressive sources. If the foundation is flimsy, then the superstructure cannot hold. The wrong people in the wrong jobs will lead to the inevitable wrong results, and square one. Is this not what occurred before?
Sticking with personnel and positions, the stilt of the masquerade (and accompanying drums) continues through the office of the prime minister. This cannot be an honorary position, or an ornamental presence. It is too expensive, it is insulting all around. Enough said!
Communication is another sphere where the new and old converge. How so? To ask and answer, the current officeholders play things close to the vest in formidable, sometimes impenetrable, reticence, while the old hands were very loud, very abusive, and very aggressive. The common thread is that both the new and old governments, when examined carefully, do not say much. In effect, it is a distinction without a difference.
Editor, this society desperately needs the invigoration of ideals, of skills and of talents and attitudes that benefit across the board. It cannot afford the mistakes of the past. It does not have the luxury of time and resources to essay iterations that lead nowhere. Things must be gotten right the first time; it must be gotten right now. This is how a national architecture, resplendent in hope, trust, and unswerving belief in the sublime can be achieved.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
