The People's Interview

I would like our politicians to know that they are employed by the people.

 

There are ways and times for politicians to be interviewed for the job. Anyone who fails to present themselves at the interview does not deserve the job that we the people are offering. An interview is a process of assessment through conversation. And every time a politician speaks he/she is being assessed and re-assessed. However, the initial assessment before the job is the job interview. 

The points of assessment could include: 

1. Press conferences
2. Political rallies
3. Radio interviews
4. Presentation of manifesto
5. Political debates

Well it seems the best example for an interview of our top politicians in our present system of governance is the political debate. If there is no interview the people will not know what or who they are hiring. A debate also gives the people a chance to compare and contrast leadership qualities for the job at hand.

In an interview, the candidate is expected to present what he/she will offer to the job. As to the specific expectations the interviewers want for the job, each person can look for something different and make their decision. The final decision at the polls may be unfair for a candidate but that is life.It is also up to the people if they don't want a debate to interview their political candidates but whatever happens to their 'company' the people should be responsible. The people would be responsible for the poor performance of the 'company' because they are the owners of the company who did not exercise due diligence in the selection process of the right politician, a shareholder and manager charged with properly 'running the company'.

So after the interviews it's time for the people to make a decision. May be it is better to say voting public because so much of the Jamaicans have lost faith or didn't have any in the political process. A friend even asked me since week, "why am I not going to vote?" I simply answered that the present system of governance doesn't make sense to me. The philosophy of ruling with a government and with an opposition (aka counter government) is counter intuitive to progress. Our hard earned tax dollars are being used to pay some people to oppose an idea instead properly brainstorming problems.

After further thought of my answer I also saw that our present system is not according to the natural decision making dilemma and process- People need more options for leaders. Our current system presents the voting public with only two options and makes it difficult for the introduction of independent candidates to work outside the agendas of the two major political parties.

The current system also doesn't leave the responsibility of choosing leaders with the people. As in the recent cases of the removal of Damion Crawford and Raymond Pryce as candidates for their respective constituencies. Our present democracy has even proven to be against natural selection. Where leaders are selected from among specific class of the society to represent people who they don't even know. There is only one thing worse than the political representative not knowing the people and that is the people not knowing him/her. 

In the social groups of our neighbours in the animal kingdom, that we consider of lesser estate, their leaders and alpha's rise from among them. Their leaders are groomed and tested to prove themselves worthy to lead the group to 'the fertile plains'. What kind of system is this we govern ourselves by, where leaders do not have to prove themselves strong enough, smart enough or cunning enough to lead and protect the society? Is mankind going backwards? Do we even know that socializing is not only partying?

When all is said and done though, the interview of politicians by the people will not be effective if the people are not able to hold their candidates accountable for not fulfilling the promise made in the 'interview process'. And most importantly, if the public is not looking for specific skills a candidate should have to be the leader of the country we don't need any debate. We could just accept any and everyone or 'jus lef whosoever in de already and mek dem step up d "progress".' We all have something or a list of attributes we look for in a leader.

General things I look for in the job interview for a leadership post:

1. A track record of integrity
2. Influence
3. Recommendation of the candidate
4. How they plan to fulfill the job description.

What would you want to see in the leader of your country?


Left to right: Leader of Opposition Mr. Andrew Holness, Hon. Portia Simpson-Miller