There is no doubt that the political platforms, every “silly season,” have gotten progressively worse and shows no signs of getting better. Actually, if anything, the signs all point to this unfortunate situation getting even worse before it gets better.
We have visited this issue briefly in the past, but it warrants another mention particularly because the young amongst us have become increasingly more attentive and largely because there are a multitude of important issues begging for a minute at the microphone.
In this election cycle, both sides of the political divide have already claimed that the rhetoric on the other platform is nothing short of disgusting and claimed to have advised their members not to participate in such behavior. So where is the “maypwe” coming from?
The banter on the platform is nothing new. Over the years it has formed part of the strategy to energize the base and is widely accepted and expected to be prevalent in the year leading up the general elections.
Earlier this week, during an open mic press briefing Prime Minister and Leader of the St. Lucia Labour Party {SLP} Philip Pierre was not impressed when Voice personnel referenced the “Silly Season.” He was adamant that the period should not be referred to as the “silly Season” because it is a very serious time that required constructive issues-based discussions.
Leader of the Opposition and the United Workers Party {UWP} Allen Chastanet is quoted online as saying “there was a time not so long ago, when we could sit across from one another, hold different views and still find common ground in mutual respect. We could debate passionately, disagree honestly and then shake hands at the end of the day. It’s time we return to those values of decency, of dialogue, of unity over division. Our democracy depends on it.”
Who then are the culprits pushing hate, dragging peoples’ personal business onto platforms, seemingly encouraging violence and lacking substance when they stand before their constituents?
Is there such a thing as good “political maypwe,” good banter, or acceptable picong?
In times gone, there were occasions of platform levity that undoubtedly chalked its place in local political history, although some of the old rhetoric might not pass the politically-correct test of today.
That said, where has the fiery and personally directed venom come from and why do our politicians, new and old, think it is necessary to engage is such practices?
It is exceedingly clear that we need to return to the time when we could actually attend political meetings on the Market Steps or the Boulevard to listen to the issues that require the attention of our leaders.
Civilized political discourse, while not the sexiest of pastimes, can be seen as a critical component in the continuous growth and development of a young nation like ours. It is expected to inform our younger citizens. It is expected to thrash out ideas and seek consensus.
So much for what it is supposed to be. What presently is, is what we need to fix.
How about an independent body that monitors platforms with clear guidelines and the power to sanction? What say you?