I applaud the rationale behind your front page editorial series, yet at the same time I have been taken aback by your non mea culpa approach.

It is well known that the press is mightier than the sword, the pen more powerful than the gun; yet where were you when certain truths needed to be told? The Westminster style of government was thrust upon us at Independence whether we wanted it or not, for how else would 'Missis Queen' continue to lead over us? We never had a chance for an executive president presiding over a Cabinet made up of the finest minds and managers.

When your Gleaner, the newspaper and leader of public opinion could have galvanized the people by astute opinion writing and direction, you did not.

When the press could have played a role in advancing the politics, you did not. Instead, in pursuit of monopolistic non-egalitarian polices, choosing editors more for their ideology than scholarship, you allowed the nation to be led adrift with its centre unable to hold because of intellectual failings.

The change that will come about has to be led; and who best to do so than people who can mould public opinion around a cause.

It is irresponsible for you to suggest that Prime Minister Golding, with his town hall meetings, radio programmes and others, have not been "engaging in conversation with the people". Indeed, if anything, he is conversing (speaking) too much. Rather you should be suggesting that leadership should become proactive, initiating, starting movements, rather that as you are wrong to say 'responding' [reactive].

Extradition

You have, by the example of extradition, shown a singular lack of understanding and insight. Whatever has caused you to believe that the extradition delay is due only to political constituency status and/or political party support, where is your factual support for such a position?

If you are calling for a radical departure from our present political system, say so! Don't hide behind verbiage; it is well known that proportional representation destroys garrison politics in one fell swoop; the Senate as a means of rewarding political persons is mentioned as wrong, yet the very vexed question of 'party support reward' is not addressed in your editorial at all.

Your editorials stop short of linking parliamentarians' payment to productivity, and indeed can only come from persons who have not faced our electorate; for, after all, which poor voter wants to see a 'bruk pocket politician' who can't even help him to bury his grandmother.

Finally, you are asking us to be a part of what movement? Let us first see your frank comments on extrajudicial police killings; the failure to provide justice for poor people; the empowerment of the poor; the alternate use of gangsters and gang leaders, the abrogated role of the church; the bastardisation of natural honours; the real heroes among us; the cost of male educational etc. Let us have a real movement in the society, for that is the road to success.

I am, etc.,

JEPHTHAH FORD

jephthahford@hotmail.com

Vanford Medical Centre

Kingston 19