Dear Editor,
Abrasive Coexistence – One Nation; Population – 875,000; Geography – 83,000 square miles; Ten (10) Regions. These numbers indicate how much of a village we really occupy, how close we are, that we have little choice but to live as far apart as possible – whether in ‘housing schemes’ or ‘gated communities’. We are so divided as ONE NATION, that no longer six Races could share the same rules equally. On the contrary, we share only hostility though hardly equally – in this village managed by ten administrations – in turn submissive to Presidencies, the same as Ministers (totally unrelated to any religion, appointed only after seasoned elections).
It is apposite to note that the Opposition offers minimal protection of constitutional rights, whether of coastal citizens or hinterland indigenous peoples, all of whom would have voted once at a time. In the absence of part of the Parliamentary Accounts Committee (PAC), the leading decision-makers speak down like fluent waterfalls, flooding out any pressure that derives from compulsive, concerned media. The combative relationship which is sustained demeans communication that should better inspire aspirations both for adults and youths to do better than mimic discouraging examples. The latter are confused by what they hear and behaviours they observe frequently in more trepidations regimes, exposed to climatic changes in their respective political developmental environments.
But why in our circumstances of fundamentally religious neighbourhoods are we persuaded by respective leaderships to be abrasive, rather than prayerful for the good in one another? Some, against better judgement, indulge in the diminution of the spirituality of responding human beings. When are we going to reflect on how we can change first, so as to set examples to show errant leaders how successful they can be were they to be more positive, trustworthy, compassionate, make concessions, recognise, discuss how together they/we can be stronger in negotiating ONE NATION’S future amidst the increasing investment by experienced foreigners who would exploit opportunity from perceived weaknesses (in Differences)?
Who will rise to the challenge of constructing a playing field of equal winners; share the positive results of diminished hostilities; celebrate the achievement of a meaningful management partnership that our progeny would inherit with confidence? Hopefully, Journalists would also be bound to congratulate – my wishful thinking.
Sincerely,
E.B. John
