Whatever your politics, it is quite easy to detect the negative consequences that could emanate from furthering the politics of delegitimisation. Regrettably, this is a practice that too many in the political commentariat and the broader political media participate in with obtuse devotion and annoying regularity.

Practitioners of the politics of delegitimisation pursue their craft with chronic zeal. They present the darkest assessments and outlooks for the politicians and party they oppose, but are never brave or honest enough to remove the plank out of the eye of the political party they support. They are unrepentant in their beliefs that they are persuasive and duty-bound to “set the record straight”. But, which and whose record are they setting straight?

On the issue of political zones and stratification, purveyors of the politics of delegitimisation speak with straight faces about eliminating political garrisons only when garrison politics benefit the political opponent. Yet, their attitudes and utterances readily support replacing them with intellectual tribalism — this they do under the guise of political commentary.

They delegitimise the judicial system whenever the courts rule against them. They delegitimise law enforcement when a relative or friend is arrested. They delegitimise parliament and parliamentarians when laws are enacted that run counter to their interests. And they delegitimise the media when news reports do not reflect their bloated egos. They delegitimise socio-economic successes so long as it bears the name of the opposing party. Yet, they happily praise economic mediocrity and “sleight of hand” once it is in furtherance of their political party or philosophy.

Quite frankly, Teacher Higgins, the comparison you made between Portia Simpson Miller and disgraced former US president, the late Richard Nixon, was brutish and flatly offensive to Portia’s pristine record of propriety, probity and valour — however allegorical your comparison was meant to be.

The sad truth about this practice is that practitioners have no inkling whatsoever that their “sick habit” goes far beyond the obvious targets — politicians (read: some politicians). If left unchallenged, the practice could weaken the foundations on which our robust, but still fragile, democracy rests. The chronic practice of elevating the politics of delegitimisation is antithetical to some of the national outcomes we desire — the so-called intelligentsia ought to know this quite well.

Furthermore, we cannot be serious about wanting to achieve meaningful bipartisanship with this relentless fascination with, and fixation on the politics of delegitimisation. When I speak of bipartisanship I am not talking about the superficial kind that was on display in Gordon House last Tuesday in recognition of Portia Simpson MIller’s contribution to our politics and Parliament. Here, I am speaking about the kind of bipartisanship that allows for consensus on matters that hinge entirely on national unity, with both sides speaking with one accord and acting collaboratively in the best interest of the country. The fight against crime and corruption came readily to mind as two critical areas for which this rather substantive form of bipartisanship (aka national consensus) is urgently needed.

There is everything ignoble about pushing the politics of delegitimisation. To the contrary, there is great nobility in advancing the legitimacy of our body politic and political institutions, though both are works-in-progress. Similarly, there is nothing innocuous about teaching the political history of our country in a sordid fashion, or in a manner that distorts the record. In fact, there is everything distasteful and abhorrent about prorogating political falsehood as a means of delegitimising politicians. The practice robs impressionable children of a real opportunity to learn about our contemporary politics, politicians, political development and the basic civics of Jamaica as a nation state. With this practice of denunciation comes a treasure trove of one-dimensional partisan malarkey and untruths that, if left unopposed, could pull us back to the heyday of the violent and ideologically turbulent 1970s.

We have a duty to safeguard against those who appear hell-bent on using this method of rebuke to impugn the integrity of our political institutions, bring down entire governments, destroy characters, and marginalise people with whom they have superficial or real political differences. The practice of unnecessary excoriation of politicians and belittlement of their contribution, based on spurious partisan claims, heightened feelings of self-importance, ignorance, self-interests, or sheer tribalistic behaviours will not move us an inch closer to achieving our goals as a country, let alone attracting bright young people who want to serve in representational politics.

The impact of this boring fascination, besides the endless attempts at settling decades-old political scores, goes way beyond the boundaries of engaging smear as a political stratagem. Simply put, it furthers the ‘crab in the barrel’ mentality — a mentality that has yet to redound to our collective benefit. This kind of desperation is responsible for some of the antisocial, politically antagonistic, crude, corrupt and violent behaviours we see manifesting day in, day out. Yet, we cuss and fuss about the quality of our political discourse and the composition of the political directorate. Undoubtedly, politics is not for the faint of heart. Every politician, regardless of party affiliation, knows of William Shakespeare’s quote: “…Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown…” Still, this gives little comfort to them, more so within the context of the enormous personal and professional sacrifices they make every day.

Kindness, therefore, is but a small token to share, especially when we damn well know that most of us possess neither grit nor testicular fortitude to endure an hour in the life of a politician. So, while there is no desire to use this space as a “shout-out” to politicians, the fact that our politicians are not devoid of humanity, there is no shame on my part defending their good intentions and personhood. As a matter of fact, like any other member of society or family, politicians reflect the amalgam of traits, attitudes and feelings that make them as human as the rest of us are. Instead of merciless batter-bruising, we might help ourselves by adjusting our expectations of them and the parties they belong to. The truth is, for a variety of reasons, political parties, such as the People’s National Party (PNP) and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), will not always deliver as we expect — it is prime lunacy to expect otherwise.

Hence, it is steeply foolish to “throw out the baby with the bathwater” or to burn the town down as a way of expressing disappointment with unfulfilled expectations. Instead, we must move beyond the practice of tearing down, and understand a bit more about how the world really works. Some failures result because of short-sightedness, corruption, unbankable ideas, etc, but other failures are because of structural deficiencies such as legacy deficits such as our extractive economic model and history (which are never easy to correct). Added to that are geographic challenges, unfriendly environmental conditions, and limited natural resources, most of which are beyond their capacity to change or circumvent entirely.

There is nothing enlightening about the incessant berating, battering and delegitimising of certain politicians — all in the name of political commentary. There is nothing in those commentaries and articles that would remotely qualify as being “in the public’s interest” or satisfying “the public’s right to know” — absolutely nothing edifying. Equally, there is nothing erudite and certainly nothing civil about casting the PNP as “all good” and the JLP as “all bad”, or vice versa, and when there is ample evidence to the contrary. The fact is, both parties (JLP and PNP), as well as the various prime ministers who have served the country, have given of their best.

From chief minister and first prime minister, Alexander Bustamante, to Premier Norman Washington Manley, or Donald Sangster, Hugh Shearer, Michael Manley, Edward Seaga, P J Patterson, Portia Simpson Miller, Bruce Golding, and second-timer Andrew Holness, our political leaders have, in some form or fashion, been equal to the task in helping to advance the interest of the Jamaican people, and with it the Jamaican dream and experiment. They all contributed in diverse ways and have attained varying levels of success — as well as some failures. It would be intellectually dishonest to pretend that Edward Seaga was the only prime minister to have made significant contributions to Jamaica’s economic development or cultural advancement. The same would be true were we to pretend that Michael Manley was the only prime minister to have brought far-reaching and real changes to the process of social re-engineering.

The politics of delegitimisation may very well have been poisoning the well, hence the difficulty to recruit from a broader pool of talent. Stories abound — many yet untold — about the generosity of some of these same politicians whose politics and political affiliations we like to delegitimise. Make no bones about it — politicians are susceptible too, and oftentimes succumb to some of the same mistakes, shortcomings and proclivities as the rest of society. They are no Messiahs. Some mask penury far better than how leaf litter mantids and lantern flies take on the look of decomposing leaves or rotten tree barks just to fake wealth so they can give to their constituents and at great sacrifice to their families.

We should consider more fitting tributes than to heap fire in their bosoms. Their grips on knowledge and vision are no greater than those of average men and women. Therefore, the unsavoury attacks on our body politic is akin to the practice of damning our political institutions and those we elect as political representatives.

In our democracy, we choose our politicians. Like it or not, we — the people — are indispensable to our democratic traditions and process. As such, and given the benefit of having a “free press”, we can, and ought to, criticise and hold our politicians responsible and accountable for promises made, the actions they take, and decisions they make on our behalf. We must also hold ourselves equally accountable and responsible for the choices we make in electing them as governors.

However, we must respect the political intellect and smarts of our fellow citizens when they choose the political party they feel offers the best opportunities and hope of improving their lives and those of their children. This is even more relevant in our kind of democracy, because we, the people — the absolute majority — freely elect whomever we want. It makes redundant the efforts of a few political windbags to delegitimise the choices of the majority by questioning, without sound reasons, the wisdom of the people to choose as they see fit.

Those who sit in armchairs and “chew iron and spit fire” must be forever mindful of the tenets of people power enough to respect it, but to also understand that we, the people, are also the Government. Do not jump to the conclusion that Burns is calling for “absolute agreement” or permanent “kumbayas” when divergence is appropriate and opposing a necessary action. None of what this article is about is meant to censure. None of it is intent on advancing the backwardness inherent in the principle of intolerance to dissent. None of it means that columnists and commentators must suppress their political inclinations or camouflage subjectivity under the pretext of “absolute objectivity” or political neutrality. The objective of this piece is to appeal to the commonness of our humanity by entreating those of us who have an opportunity to shape public opinion to be gracious, but to remain fair and firm in how we treat and regard others we dislike or with whom we have disagreements.

The process of offering oneself for public office, securing the public’s confidence, trust and support is not as easy as some may think. It matters not, whether the offerer gets elected by dint of hard work or by sheer luck. Politics requires “cojones” — and more than just enough to kill fleas. If it were as easy as some inaptly characterise it, many who remain in the pavilion only to criticise in unfair ways would step up to the band and become ‘drum majors’ of sorts for the national good.

Still, these are members of the same clique who are quick to claim knowledge of all things political, scientific, economic, historical, institutional, and social. This is the same cadre who will readily admit that they are ready to change the world, yet they cannot lift a hammer. The point is simple. It is not easy for people who offer themselves for public office. It is true. The politician upon whom rests the burden of proof must first overcome instant or prolonged bouts of cynicism, as well as raw and oftentimes misplaced scepticism.

Sometimes a politician’s best intentions are automatically placed under the microscope — as it should; their best efforts instantaneously dismissed, ridiculed, sabotaged; or their blueprints for national or parochial advancement treated with scorn, intellectual dishonesty and disinterest. It is just as difficult for the constituents to accept and buy into their dreams and aspirations. The thing is, constituents must also overcome their own biases, fears and trepidations, and sufficiently so for them to embrace and trust the politician.

Therefore, healthy scepticism is good. Weighing the pros and cons of a person’s history and philosophical moorings ahead of buying the bait, all “hook, line and sinker” of it, is not only prudent, but is also to safeguard against “Greeks bringing gifts”. Candidly, “Greeks” are not only politicians or political parties, but include peopler who “must sing for their supper”. These are individuals who will choo like trains and sing sweeter than white-throated sparrows because it is in their best self-interest to do so.

Sometimes we’d be better off if we “do not trust the horse, Trojans, whatever they are…” Nevertheless, if we were more proactive and somewhat policy-focused in the run-up to our election campaigns, national or local government, we could have had better outcomes. This practice of delegitimising people and institutions is the perfect platform for launching unnecessary cynicism. For, as we all know, sometimes “the cynical pseudo-scepticism we like to uphold is just paranoid conspiracy mongering”. Yet, this is the type of discrediting that emanates from the bowels of political nitwits, tribalists and chronic naysayers with their own narrow-minded agendas, one-dimensional world view, and distorted opinions of things. Let’s agree on one thing, though: Sowing seeds of discord, using division and derision as tools to delegitimise both the political and democratic processes and to impugn the integrity of the people we elect (politicians) to govern and represent us is bitterly counter-intuitive.

Burnscg@aol.com