The comical jostling for positions within the secretariat of the governing Jamaica Labour Party, coupled with deep rumblings of dissatisfaction with its second-tier leadership core has set off a broader discussion among Jamaicans about generational leadership change. Fascinatingly, the discussions taking place in the public square have as much to do with the JLP and its internal strife as they have to do with how to retire the country’s senior politicians, promote young people to leadership and establish term limits for the office of prime minister. Sadly, though, the discussions have not seriously focused on the mechanics of “how” we intend to accomplish these things.

So far, the debate is tilted in favour of kicking out old people, as many believe politicians over 50 years old “fi go si-dung and ol’ dem caana”. Disappointingly, the supporting arguments have not recognised the huge chasm that this indecent haste could create between the state and retired seniors who possess valuable and utilisable knowledge and experience that the country needs. Similarly, proponents have not presented any credible plans on how they would close the social capital deficit that is certain to surface. This one-dimensional approach is robbing us of the opportunity to zoom in on servant-leadership.

Proposers of the early retirement of senior politicians view retirement as a way of revamping Jamaica’s body politic and of improving overall governance, while infusing youthful dynamism. And supporters for the promotion of young people to leadership are convinced that the move could go far in fostering leadership renewal and change. For them, the emergence of fresh and young talent is not only essential to the preservation of our democracy, but the endowment of youth power is fundamental to leadership development.

To be fair, the thrust towards youth leadership is not as berserk as some senior political practitioners have made it out to be. The truth is, although the push toward youth leadership has gained momentum of late, the practice has been around for quite some time. Jamaica’s Hugh Shearer was 44 when he became prime minister in 1967 and Michael Manley was 47 when he became prime minister in 1972. US presidents John F Kennedy was 43, Theodore Roosevelt 42 and Barbados’ Owen Arthur was 45 years old when he became prime minister. The election of Guyana’s Bharrat Jagdeo, US president Barack Obama, Congo’s Joseph Kabila, Georgia’s Mikheil Saakashvili and Britain’s David Cameron confirmed the extent to which generational leadership change has gained traction in recent times. Therefore, youth leadership is not a 21st century phenomenon.

Advocates of term limits are in love with, and make a point in citing the American arrangement. And so, they anchor their arguments upon the Twenty-Second Amendment to the United States Constitution which established term limits for US presidents. But some advocates can’t help being intellectually dishonest, because they usually ignore a very important and historical fact – Franklin D Roosevelt won four terms and America was not the worst off for having elected him as many times. The inclusion is important because it advances the view that term limits may not be such a big deal after all, particularly when the effectiveness, success and accomplishments of a prime minister or president are as impressive as those of Franklin D Roosevelt and Lee Kuan Yew of Singapore.

And while the argument could be made that predictable leadership cycles and limited tenures could reduce the propensity for abuse and corruption, a counter argument could be made that abuse and corruption do not require a lot of time to incubate. But back to the issue of generational leadership change and the push to install young people to positions of power. In Jamaica’s case, there could be serious pitfalls towards automatic matriculation, especially in cases where tangible qualitative assessments of prospective leaders are non-existent. We have to be careful because we run the risk of assuming that youth is immune from the effects of decades of negative political socialisation.

There are young people in Jamaica aspiring for leadership who are by-products of the nasty nuances of our politics – watch them in Parliament. They believe that donning a jacket and tie is enough to convince people of their nobility and that their motivation to serve is purely altruistic. God help us, because in many instances their motivation is brutally self-serving. Political and civic leadership should be motivated by a genuine call to service. Moreover, the service rendered ought to be in pursuit of achieving the best for the society.

The recent “No-Confidence” motion brought against Prime Minister Bruce Golding was a perfect opportunity for youth leadership to emerge from within the ranks of the JLP, but alas, their collective behaviour was in lockstep with their senior political heroes. Where was their commitment to servant-leadership? They should know that, great leaders are defined by the challenges they face and how they acquit themselves in solving them. This notion of everyone wanting to be leader is counter-intuitive and could create political paralysis. Some of these prospects are so dumb that one has to wonder how they find the front door to their office. Leadership is about building meaningful relationships – relationships between people, policies, processes, purpose, ownerships and outcomes that can inure to the benefit and greater good of mankind.

For this to happen, leadership must inspire and harness the best in their followers. And although leaders can spring from the soil of special circumstances and less from any nurtured ambition, they must embrace ethics, responsibility, obligation, vision, competence and empathy. It should not be that we promote people to leadership as rewards for eloquent speeches. We must not promote people to leadership because we perceive them to be nice or because of their ability to recite statistical data or rationalise slackness. We should not promote people to leadership because they possess the physical attributes of a leader, and most certainly we ought not to promote people to leadership solely because of their youth. After all, leadership is about more than youth, glitz and glamour.

Burnscg@aol.com