Our politicians are not incidental or peripheral to our lives; they are, for better or for worse, central. One online reader cynically responded to my recent article on transformational leadership by suggesting that the fact that, in his words, “a person with a PhD” should take politicians seriously says a lot about our education system. In short, there is a deficiency in our education system. His views are no doubt shared by many. Regrettably, I do take our political leaders and elected representatives seriously. And, though many have lied or deliberately misled us, and though many seem to act in their own self-interest, I hope for a country in which the majority of politicians and elected officials would truly put country above self and act in the best interest of the country.

Although there have been many cases in which acts of deception have been egregious, somehow I believe in the nobler spirit of people and the capacity of human beings to transcend themselves, including coming back from the pit or the brink. This does not mean we do not hold ourselves and each other accountable when we fall below agreed standards, or demand that we strive for higher levels of performance; no, it simply means that I believe that we challenge ourselves to be better tomorrow than we were yesterday and are today.But there are still many who believe we should be caring less about politicians who seem to be caring less about the people they represent, and whose carelessness in their handling of public resources sometimes rises to the level of being corrupt. But, let us be clear, any person — politician, public servant, parson, or pope — can fall into error, make decisions with insufficient care, or be caught in the cross hairs of corruption. But it is how the person responds when confronted or called out that tells us what the person’s real value system is. A global problemThe perception that politicians are helplessly uncaring and care only for themselves and therefore are not worth our worry and anxiety is not a localised problem. It is expressed in a number of ways, one of which is the public perception of politicians.A 2015 survey conducted by the Pew Research Centre shows that the vast majority of Americans had a less than favourable view of their politicians. See Table 1.The trend in negative perceptions of politicians in the USA was further assessed by the Pew Centre with respect to the variable ‘whether elected officials cared about what people think’. Pew’s findings, as shown in Table 2, reveal that, between 1994 and 2015, the percentage of those who believe that politicians do not care about what people think, grew from 64 per cent to 74 per cent, while the percentage of those who believe politicians cared about what people think fell from 34 per cent in 1994 to 23 per cent in 2015. See Table 2.An important proxy measure of how people feel about politicians and the political process can be seen in the participation rates (turnout) in national elections. Here in Jamaica, there has been a steady decline in voter turnout over the last 20 years — 1997 to 2016 — as shown in Table 3. Although there was a slight upward movement in 2007, relative to 2002, the general trend had been a steady percentage decline.I am not aware of empirical data on Jamaicans’ perceptions on the degree to which our politicians care or do not care, and why. But there are some anecdotes and proxy indicators. One popular explanation for the behaviour of Jamaican politicians is Anancyism. In Jamaica, as elsewhere, trickery seems to be the mother of good politicking. The explanation for the deep mistrust, indifference, and cynicism which many Jamaicans feel towards elected officials can be found in the perception that “di politician dem jus lie”.Some apologists for the status quo of political gamesmanship and the lack of real care for those whom elected officials are sworn to serve, offer — even though not as a defence — another, somewhat intriguing explanation for the seemingly uncaring disposition of Jamaican politicians. These apologists suggest that because Jamaican politicians are so poorly paid, one can hardly expect them to invest the time and energy necessary to care for those they represent.An April 2013 news story carried in

The Gleaner, entitled ‘Poorly paid politicians — Jamaican political leaders among the worst paid in the region’, might have been taken by the man in the street as evidence of why some of what happens, happens. The article, which is based on a study that was conducted by the Integrity Commission in the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) found, among other things, that “of the eight regional states surveyed in the report, Jamaica was the largest and had, by far, the lowest per capita income. The report showed that per capita income in the countries surveyed ranged from a high of US$69,080 in Bermuda to a low of US$5,126 in Jamaica.In relation to salaries for elected officials, the study found that Jamaica’s prime minister is the lowest paid in the region, when salaries and allowances are combined with a salary that was less than one-third of that of the highest paid, the TCI premier, who takes home US$288,000. But what is even more startling is that “Cabinet ministers in Jamaica were ranked seventh of the eight territories compared”, and thus received a salary that was better than that of Cabinet ministers in volcano-ravaged Montserrat.While these various explanations do not justify indifference and lack of care on the part of Members of Parliament, they do explain aspects of their behaviour. I recall one Member of Parliament saying to me in 2013, “What do people expect from an MP who takes home $250,000 per month?”Whatever the explanations, the fact is that there is widespread public perception that elected officials are not as committed as they should be to representing the public’s interest. The findings of research in the USA could very well be similar or worse in Jamaica. But should we simply concede defeat and leave things as they are, or should we seek to do something about it? My position is, obviously, that we should do something about it. Creating a cultureThere are six measures which could help towards creating a culture in which elected officials conduct their task of representation in a manner that focuses on the interests of the people.(a) Mandatory training in political education: This would include the issues such as local legislation, Jamaica’s relations with other countries, international agreements and protocols on which Jamaica is a signatory, etc.(b) Corruption prevention training and increased sanctions for violations: This area would involve exposure to issues such as conflicts of interest, arms-length dealings, bases for recusal, accountability, etc, and criminal sanctions for certain violations; thus the need to amend or enforce legislation.(c) Training in ethics and the strengthening of Parliament’s Ethics Committee: The area of training here may overlap with corruption, but there would be some specific exposure to principles of ethics. In strengthening the Ethics Committee of Parliament there should be the establishment of an active oversight mechanism with investigative capabilities. The focus of the work of such a committee should be on preventing the use of public office for the advancement of personal interests and other acts which have the potential to thwart the public good.(d) Training in public policy, strategic planning, leadership for all Members of Parliament and political aspirants: There should be certain standards of quality representation, one of which is a “representational” plan, aka a constituency development plan.In order to lead in the process of developing such a plan, the Member of Parliament or aspirant should have some experience in the basics of planning, management, and leadership. In this regard, there would be need for the establishment of mandatory minimum standards, agreed on a multi/bipartisan basis for individuals to be accepted by their political parties to run as representatives.(e) The establishment of objective representational assessment metrics: The quality of political representation and the assessment of elected representatives against established metrics on an annual basis should become normative. Non-partisan organisations, comprising diverse professional and even political perspectives, would conduct the assessments. The organisation should not be dependent on government funding nor accept donations from politicians.(f) Provision for recall of elected representatives: Representatives who fail to create constituency development plans (that reflect broad-based stakeholder participation); or who commit serious ethical violations or are found to be involved in corruption should be recalled. 

Dr Canute Thompson is a management consultant and lecturer in educational policy, planning, and leadership at the School of Education, The University of the West Indies. He is also co-founder of the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative and author of three books on leadership. Send comments to the Observer or

canutethompson1@gmail.com.