WHEN we use terms like efficiency, innovation, or participation, we may not fully realise it but we actually mean many things. Ideally, a specific thing or idea has only one true meaning that is well understood. In Shakespeare’s play Romeo and Juliet, it is observed that a rose by any other name is still a rose. The nature of a thing is more important that what it is called.
From a computing perspective, the meaning and intention of actions are usually specific, although subjectively interpreted when not fully understood. For example, computer programmers will add comments to their work to convey the true meaning to others who need to understand or modify that work. The meaning and nature of complex computer code is enhanced by adding such remarks, or making it self-documenting. This approach could be usefully applied to processes and institutions within our society to improve their quality.
With general elections due shortly in Saint Lucia, there is an opportunity to compare how we conduct ourselves with election fever in the air. The campaign slogans, the catchy phrases, and even calypsonian’s tunes all contribute to the colour and flavour of our elections. Despite the differences between our style of campaigning and the rivalry observed in the US presidential race, there are some worrying similarities. You may have noticed some elements, such as:
* The quality of candidates;
* The timing of elections;
* The profanity of speakers;
* The attitude of voters.
How do these elements affect us and the overall campaign? Are the candidates a true reflection of the people? Is the timing convenient for all or just for some? Could voter apathy unwittingly deliver an unwelcome result? Are there any shortcomings in the process that we could resolve? Do we have the confidence, willingness, or capacity to reform our institutions?
Consider the impact of the following options, whereby:
* Unappealing candidates could be overridden by the electorate;
* The date of elections could be reliably predicted or agreed;
* Eligible voters could be facilitated or required to participate.
Each of these items represents a significant change in our system, and together could strengthen the electoral process. Should we delay or refuse to make such changes? More importantly, what is the nature of the process if left unchanged?
To share your views, contact the author at: www.datashore.net or via The Voice.
Dr. Lyndell St. Ville is an ICT Consultant based in Saint Lucia. His expertise includes systems analysis, policy review, and risk assessment