BASSETERRE, St. Kitts – WHEN politicians mount their soap boxes at political meetings, even before they venture to open their mouths, we know what is coming! What comes forth is a tirade laced with verbal bullets aimed at their targets…their political opponents.
The electorate of any country, before going to the polls, would need to be brought up to speed on the issues; what they are, what are the various political parties’ views on these issues and what the individual candidates’ views on the issues are.
It would be untruthful to say that issues are never addressed on the political platform but, if we were to be honest, we would realise that a major part of St. Kitts/Nevis politics is driven by how well one candidate can verbally assassinate another one’s character.
The disrespect that these politicians have for each other is just glaring and pitiful. And lest we forget, children, the innocent ones among us, the leaders of tomorrow who are listening, who are watching and they are taking note.
They take note of all the slangs (some of which are derogatory) uttered by politicians who take direct aim at their opponents, and somehow effortlessly commit them to memory only to retrieve them from the banks of their mind at will to use against their friends and even adults whom they feel would have wronged them.
As important as the discussion of this alarming trend is, this editorial is not meant to focus on that but rather on the fact that important matters are neglected or not properly addressed, because far too much time is spent finalising their campaign of personal attack against their opponents.
Wouldn’t it be practical to spend more time presenting their plans for the upcoming five years as workable solutions to problems being experienced by the populace? Wouldn’t it be more practical to ENSURE that at least the majority of the populace is cognisant of what route or measures a particular party or individual intends to take once elected or re-elected to public office?
Instead however, those who would relish listening to or observing a political meeting containing the substance of plans and strategies of advancement of individuals, families, communities and the Federation, are faced with the options of feasting on the unpalatable rhetoric or abstaining altogether.
And even if the populace is fully aware of where all parties sit concerning particular issues, shouldn’t politicians be doing what they could to ensure that these issues remain at the forefront of their constituents’ minds?
Maybe, for ‘die hard’ party supporters, the diatribe is acceptable and even enjoyable. But for the contingent of voters who could not care less about voting party and are avid supporters of the voting according to the issues principle, an unprecedented political culture shift is indeed needed.
A cheap jab here and there can be tolerated and probably even accepted. However, the constant, vicious, unsavory comments spewed across political platforms do absolutely nothing to raise the level of debate in the Federation; and to be frank, do nothing to further educate the public.
This atrocious and unwarranted practice makes one wonder if when voters place their ‘X’ on polling day they are required to do so based on which candidate’s character has the most bullet holes or which has the most mud flung at him or her.
