Dear Editor,
I wrote something the other day on my thinking as to what the opposition’s presidential candidate embodies. Even though I tried to be polite, the defence was not long in coming, as if the man has to be shielded from any chill winds that come.
Almost like of one of those cheap spring-loaded jack-in-the-box holiday toys, there was some character (hopefully breathing and animated), who rushed out from under the Christmas tree to advocate on behalf of this noble, this sullied, this sterling candidate for leader of this torn, woes-plagued, and ill-fated society. It could have been warming, even stirring, if the citizen in question (I will give him that), this president-in-the parlour, is worth the rushed defence, or the shallow and spurious representations tendered so hopefully (and vainly) on his behalf. I say hopefully because even his own people have great difficulty processing and recognizing his candidacy.
Now if they, who are so deep in the folds of the faithful, are so troubled and disturbed by the standing of the man-one of their own-as to national leadership strength and potential, then what about those outside the party’s sheepfold? Like me? What about the rest of this society, which holds him, to put it grandly, in a less than ideal light? In fact, far from that, because if one were to conduct an unofficial survey inside the opposition’s woodpile, the presidential candidate would not be 2nd or 3rd or 4th or even 5th choice for such high office.
Thus, when someone, like me, ventures to whisper that the man has no clothes, nor does he stand upright, and his thought processes lack coherence and persuasive power, then I appreciate that matters cannot be left unattended, even if only for the records. Yet, even the defence people are lacklustre. The issue is that more damage is done to the party’s candidate, through the specious that make the rounds defiantly; the candidate is not helped by the lame and mostly limp. In fact, he comes over as even more vulnerable. I would suggest leaving some things alone, and let them wither the vine.
This is the latest that came out of the factory and should be tried for size: he has three former presidents to tutor and guide along towards and beyond electoral success. Good luck! I see several holes in the latest concoction by the machine, which grinds and whines rather torturously. First, it is that at this most demanding time in this country’s history, there would be leadership grooming from the nursery level. I may be able to manage with that, but this business about three former presidents lurking in the wings suffers from severe shortcomings.
Think about this: one could not teach him anything about ethics or moral leadership; not a priority, not even a familiarity. Another couldn’t point him in the direction of anything remotely looking like competence; that, too, is an alien concept. And the third, who might be able to fill the gaps is too far down the influence pole that his advice would be more ignored than embraced.
In addition, there are two other issues no less disturbing than those already identified. The presidential candidate is reputed to be hard-headed, which is the colloquial expression for arrogant. He would have difficulty listening, actually hearing anything, and implementing thereafter. Further, even if all of his mentors were top drawer material in those areas pinpointed as deficient, the candidate would not be the best of students, far from it.
Given the past, still perturbing as to record of student life and body of work, there is not much that I should have left to say. The bottom line is this: the candidate is seen as anathema to some of his own; if he can’t past that filter, then clearly, very clearly, it is asking too much of too many outsiders to give the benefit of the doubt. And especially when the Machiavellian has been behind his push, his presence, and his own quest for power. In other words, the candidate is a prop and conduit.
Yours faithfully,
GHK Lall
