Credibility once lost is difficult to regain. This appears to mean nothing to some politicians and key supporters. It might also be that they are so assured of the absolute and unquestioning support of their base that they see no need to be credible. This is a poor reflection on the politicians, their key supporters, and their base of supporters.
Do those who profess a desire to lead have a responsibility to make the best decisions and institute the best policies for the electorate even if at that time it is not obvious to the electorate? It often appears that politicians are either feeding their egos or pandering to their political base to ensure their continued support rather than insisting on implementing what is likely to be the best outcome. Was the best outcome achieved in relation to the development of the Blowing Point Ferry Terminal and the Landsome Bowl Cultural Centre? Will the best outcome be achieved in relation to the development of the Clayton J Lloyd International Airport? There are questions surrounding the adequateness of these facilities, some of which appear to be well founded. Some politicians, however, seem to be focused on bragging rights rather than ensuring continued improvements for the benefit of Anguillians, residents and visitors.
When politicians seek credit for delivering what they consider to be a considerable improvement on what previously existed, they should also accept the blame for the shortcomings in those developments. This is not often the case. Very often the shortcomings are totally ignored, with the politicians appearing to be following the example of the ostrich with his head buried in the sand. They seem to think that if it is not acknowledged by them, it does not exist. If persons fail to acknowledge the obvious their credibility ought to be questioned.
Mr. Ronald Webster, who has been accorded the title father of the nation, is credited with establishing the Social Security System despite the lack of support from the electorate. He believed that the system would benefit his people and despite their protests he ensured its implementation. Was it perfect at implementation? It was not, and it continues to be improved upon by decision makers today. There is no shame in accepting that an improvement is not perfect and working to remedy the flaws.
We often see politicians and key supporters bickering publicly while seeking to ensure that a particular politician or political party is credited with delivering some project, while paying little attention to the shortcomings of the project which must now be addressed by their successors. This is counterproductive and does not suggest that these persons are desirous of seeing improvements for the benefit of the citizens but rather to feed their own egos. When will the electorate begin to question the credibility of our leaders such that our leaders recognise that they are not admired for their conduct and instead of retaining or gaining votes they are likely to lose votes by their behaviour? The electorate will only get the standard of conduct that they demand from their elected leaders.
Social media is replete with the comments of key supporters of politicians following their respective radio programmes or interviews. Sadly, the comments of some persons are immediately discredited as they are considered to be so blinded by their support for a particular politician or political party that their comments lack credibility. They are viewed as biased and as not having engaged in any critical analysis of what was said but are hailing the comments made simply on the basis of who made them. Discerning persons, view the comments of these persons with scepticism. This is particularly disheartening when the persons are perceived as having the education and the background to help to raise the understanding of ‘John Public’ but prefers to do otherwise. Such persons appear to pay little regard to the fact that credibility once lost is difficult to regain.
