As a developing democracy under 50 years of age, we have to be constantly on the lookout to learn from our own mistakes and from the mistakes of others.
Last week a development in the presidential campaign in the United States may provide us with much food for thought as we approach our own general election.
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney was taped at a fund-raising event making the kind of comments which have been widely vilified by critics and political friends and foes alike as unworthy of a serious candidate for high political office or, indeed, any political office.
Governor Romney’s comment was that he doesn’t worry about the 47 per cent of Americans who do not pay taxes since they were not going to vote for him any way. He went on to characterize them as seeing themselves as victims and he further regarded them as having an entitlement mentality eager for government handouts!
Many commentators were quick to see this statement as some sort of indication that Mr Romney had written off a significant portion of American people in language which suggested a lack of empathy for those who were not as fortunate as some other Americans and were at the lower end of the economic ladder.
Now we are not overly concerned about domestic American politics except in our obligation to keep our readers informed on matters in the global political space which may affect our island.
Rather, we are concerned that as responsible citizens we draw lessons from this incident.
In the final analysis all the voters in the United States have a stake therein and, regardless of class, wealth, colour, religion or ethnicity, a presidential candidate, and perforce a president, must see himself as a servant of all the people.
The same is true of every candidate who offers himself for election in our island. His or her duty is a sacred obligation to all of the people, including those who voted against, or whoever becomes the successful candidate.
This obligation is the lynchpin of a democracy and candidates therefore have a duty to set such an example during campaigns that their supporters may come to regard their opponents as friendly rivals and not deadly enemies.
It is true that candidates belong to competing political parties; but that is part of the process for the better protection of the public, for it allows the competing parties to put forward opposing ideas and to present contrasting ideologies. The public is thereby afforded a critical insight into the proposals and plans of the campaigning parties and can choose accordingly.
So even as we may sit as voters on opposite fences, wearing distinct colours, we cannot allow ourselves to believe that a constituency which returned a candidate for the losing party must suffer deprivation and not get a share of the national pie in terms of infrastructural improvements and other amenities.
In this country we have avoided some of the partisan excesses which have occurred elsewhere, even in this region, where the wearing of colours associated with one political party can be a veritable red flag to the eyes of a competing supporter. Long may we retain this admirable level of civil behaviour.
Similarly, we must take note of this recent event and be constantly on our guard against any notion which detracts from the sacred trust that says that our parliamentary representatives and perforce our Cabinet ministers and prime ministers, even though elected by the majority, are solemnly obligated to serve and represent all the people. Â
