IN CARIBBEAN societies, the authorities - that is, those in whom we have entrusted power - are frequently dismissive of the views and perspectives of other people: this is almost an axiom of Caribbean political leadership and the Caribbean constitutional structures that we have inherited. When pressed, ultimately those in power sometimes rationalise this situation by saying that leaders must lead, and that leadership therefore implicitly involves making decisions that will not necessarily take fully into account the will of the people.
When pressed further, some supporters of our present structures will also point out that administrative considerations and issues of efficacy require leaders not to abdicate their responsibilities. By this line of argument, leaders must not be like Pontius Pilate; rather than wash their hands when faced with important or controversial decisions, they must proceed on the basis of what they think is right even if their actions do not demonstrably reflect the popular will.
OBLIGATION
Of course, leaders must lead; but at the same time, they have an obligation to consult, to gather opinions from those outside the corridors of power, and to explain their decisions when they depart from the popular will. This, however, is not the same as wilfully choosing to disregard the popular will on controversial matters. The tendency of our leaders to disregard the views of other people is sometimes also justified by suggesting that the people might just not understand the great issues that fall to be considered by policy makers.
Thus, it is posited, leaders should make certain decisions on behalf of the people, people who may one day come to appreciate the value of the decisions made on their behalf. But don't bother to consult with the unexposed, or those lacking formal education; for they just would not understand.
UNDEMOCRATIC
This line of thought is not only undemocratic, it reflects poorly upon those who have the power to formulate educational policies that will broaden the interests of individuals in public affairs. Moreover, this line of thought is often meant as a way of shifting attention from a core viewpoint -- namely, that there is no need to consult with people simply because members of the leadership elite always know what's best for the people. In short, at the heart of the social tendency to disregard the views and perspectives of other people is the arrogant assumption that other people are unimportant in the grand scheme of things.
This viewpoint can, again of course, be understood with reference to Caribbean history, and especially to plantation society and colonial control. But, precisely because this phenomenon has its roots in history, and in the sociological ramifications of history, it stretches well beyond the boundaries of partisan politics and governmental structures. It pervades most of our decision-making processes and our approach to organisation generally. We see the point quite clearly with reference to sporting matters in the Caribbean. Many Jamaicans are quite annoyed about arrangements for the purchase of tickets for the two one-day internationals held here on the weekend. They are annoyed largely because of long delays for the purchase of tickets, but also because the explanations for the long delays clearly indicate a lack of interest in the concerns of "other people". Do we need to be convinced that if Mr Big Man had to stand in the hot sun outside Sabina Park to purchase tickets, a better system would have been arranged? It really is a weak argument to suggest that the delays were prompted by renewed interest in the part of Jamaicans in the cricket following our victory in the fourth Test Match.
The renewed interest was easily predictable, so there was an obligation on the part of the authorities to take this into account. Similarly, the authorities have a duty to consider making tickets available to the unconnected cricket supporter who happens to live, say, in Montego Bay, 90 miles from the sole ticket office at Sabina Park, and who is not prepared to purchase tickets online at a rip-off rate.
BRAZIL
But, you may say, the ticketing fiasco at Sabina Park really reflects lack of judgement, and not the desire to affirm distance between the well-connected and others. Who can tell? This may bear further thought, although there seems to me to be an increasing desire on the part of sporting authorities to "use" spectators without any degree of sensitivity, a practice which prompts questions about fairness and loyalty to sports fans.
Another case in point: the upcoming football match between Brazil and Jamaica at the National Stadium. Did I hear correctly? Can tickets be obtained ONLY by purchasing a certain alcoholic drink and by hoping that your bottle stopper carries a lucky marker? If this is so, how can the Jamaica Football Federation (JFF) then ask for loyalty from football supporters in subsequent "non-bottle stopper matches"?
UNACCEPTABLE
If my understanding of the scheme for the Brazilian football match is correct, the JFF appears to have sold out to the highest bidder, and they should be told that this approach is simply unacceptable.
At least some of the tickets for the match should be available to Mary and Joe Supporters who do not drink the alcoholic drink in question, but who wish fervently to support the Reggae Boyz, or to see the Samba Kings in action.
The JFF must show that it respects football supporters, and should not allow access to this major event to turn on the flip of a cork. The JFF authorities, some of whom have shown strong and sensitive leadership skills in the past, must show that the power has not flown to their heads. They should abandon this Brazil Nut approach.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law, UWI, Mona, and a consultant in the Attorney-General's Chambers.
