SVG is not developing at the rate that it should be..reminding me of an autistic child with glimmers of brilliance but the inability to respond to the current environment.
I was having a conversation with a friend today and she began to discuss the changes that would take place in the public sector once NDP wins the next general elections (a fact that she is convinced of). I challenged her on her belief that several well-educated people would be looking for 'wuk' on the occasion of an NDP government. She then proceeded to name and list people from varying government or government-related departments that lost their 'wuk' once ULP came on stream in 2001. Therefore, it is only inevitable that the same cycle must be continued. I asked her about the purported-NDP campaign against political victimisation - she laughed. I guess once the shoe is on the other foot, a different tune is sung.
I was disheartened by the entire thing but I realised that it was an issue that I took into consideration when I returned from university in 2008. I knew that there was a serious possibility of a change in the political directorate between 2010-2011, and to save my mental sanity from wondering the continuation of a public service job/contract in a post-general election environment, I chose the private sector.
I am also guilty of perpetuating the state of stagnation.
The state of stagnation that I speak of is the constant cycle of change that occurs within the public sector. And I am not talking of the change that Heraclitus philosophised about...I think he was thinking of the developmental change signalling growth, blossoming, coming into oneself. Why is it that we have to be constantly maintaining a quick turnover in key positions.
Is it that there is a fear that the policies of a different directorate would be the subject of poor execution? Is this fear legitimate?
Are persons unqualified to continue in their positions...and the persons that replace them more capable to do the tasks?
Or there too many favours to hand out...hands to place in silk gloves once the grease of the campaign has worn off?
A combination of all of the above and more?
It is understandable that once leadership changes, there will be key positions that will have to be revamped so as to ensure that their policies are effected to their satisfaction. Sometimes the direction that the government wishes to pursue may clash with the direction that a key public servant may stand for. But do we have a private sector that can absorb these people? Provide them with working environments that will truly challenge their qualifications and remunerate them accordingly? Like the way Condelezza Rice was able to find a lecturing position at an Ivy Leaguer?
I think not... and the sad part is that persons find themselves unable to provide for their families the lifestyle that they have gotten used to. This creates a battlefield where persons in these key positions find themselves fighting for the government in power because to not do so means not fighting for yourself.
Now, I am not saying that everyone gets kicked out on their asses...I am sure if I talk to enough people I will find people who have functioned at their peaks despite gov't change.
But honestly, what irks me are the people that are graced with authority, position and benefits galore because of their prowess on the campaign trail...and nothing else (this is an entirely different blog).
But the result of all this is a nation that would never go beyond a certain level because of the constant flipping (10 years is not that long in the leadership of a nation). Perpetuating the state of stagnation.
It is like ruining a good steak or a succulent fillet of salmon...leave it...don't poke it...when it is ready to turn it will lift easily and not cling to the grill pan.
But as another friend asked me recently "what would you do as a politician?" And I genuinely could not answer simply because no matter the great ideas that we can boast of...most of us do not have a power hunger to sate
