Dear Editor,

It is not customary of me to react to the writers of letters to you, but to the contents. This has become second nature to me because of what I did for 41 years. Even though the concern was there and sometimes visible, the problem was not directly mine and neither did I make it mine. I solved it as correctly and as peacefully as I could.

I am stating this because from experience I know that, especially during political campaigns season, the people tend to believe and sometimes indicate who is backing who. For instance, the people are inclined to believe that I will vote for Anna Richardson. And I do not mind if they think that way, but they must also say why they think that way. Fact is that until otherwise is proven, the person who got the most flack from the people both on the road and in office was Anna Richardson. And I believe that all that that young lady did was be sworn in as Minister of Justice.

On moving forward she realized that approximately 700 justice workers were left stranded. With the conviction that it’s a good horse that never stumbles, she remained on the farm and decided to take the bull by the horns. Even though several of the cowhands deserted her she persevered, because before her she saw these 700 deserted families. This was something that caught everybody's attention, even though her effort to get things back on track was met with great controversy, primarily from within.

This was because there were rivals in the field, who just like all of those who profited from the toppling of every St. Maarten government since 2010, but who were expected to have her back, were following her with hidden daggers.

Within the two last days I have read three letters from persons who I expected to defend their point of view, but differently. I had to ask myself, what can change a constitutional democracy into a dictatorship?

And who are these people? Are these people different from whatever we have been having since 2010?

And then this. I was busy writing this letter when someone called me and said to me: “Now I understand why sometimes when you write you does say that you write so that the people on the bus could read and understand it.” He continued by saying that he read a letter from Michael Granger and up to now he can’t understand where he’s coming from. I usually get myself in hot water with these people, because they expect me to have a comment or to voice my opinion. I told him like I usually tell everybody who asks me what I think about so-and-so. I usually let them know that what the writer means can be interpreted differently by every individual. And if I give my opinion it will be taken literally like I said it. Meaning that too could be taken out of context and by the time it reaches the fourth person it would be a complete different story.

The black horse would have become a donkey or a mule, etc. I prefer to have the article in front of us so that we can read it together and analyze it and then come to a consensus.

That is why sometimes my letters are lengthy. Like I have mentioned, I want the people on the bus (who do not have a dictionary at hand) to be able to read the letter and understand it. Beside that there are a whole lot of words that have several different meanings and then there are many words which are pronounced the same, but are written differently and have a different meaning. For example: hair, here, hare, hear.

That is why I prefer a healthy discussion, rather than to react on assumptions.

Good (sleezy) politicians use these tactics, because they are aware that the people interpret and absorb them in different ways and consider that politician wise. That, in my opinion, is telling the people what they would like to hear rather than telling them what is reality.

Russell A. Simmons

Dear Editor,

I end my radio show on My88.3FM daily with a quote from the late great poet Maya Angelou: “People may forget what you said and they may forget what you did, but they will never ever forget how you made them feel.”

It is often said that effective leadership is best reflected in how a leader makes people feel; how they feel about their lives, their future and how they feel about a particular leader. If someone in a leadership position should ask his or her constituents “How do you feel?”, their answer is a usually a reliable indicator of the status of the country. This is why in the United States significant weight is placed upon the common survey question: “Do you think the country is headed in the right direction?”

So, lately, if you were to believe the alarms raised by our leaders, our democracy is apparently under attack. They won't tell you why, but they will tell you that they are being attacked personally, which they imply is the same as our democratic system as a whole being threatened. Words like “this is not how our democracy works” and allusions to outside forces trying to “change the way we live” are fascinating when they come from people who seem completely oblivious to the significant influence they have had on how we live on St. Maarten today.

We have reached a point in our development where leadership appears to be caught in a never-ending circle of self-serving concerns, as demonstrated by expressions of concern for our democracy when perceived dangers hit too close. Put another way, when the media was being repressed, which can hinder the free flow of ideas and reduce the capacity of citizens to make informed judgments, democracy was not in jeopardy. There was no threat to democracy when legislation restricting civil freedoms and rights was passed. When political opponents in the citizenry are singled out and subjected to political victimization, democracy is not at peril. When leaders manipulate facts and spread false information, democracy is not in jeopardy.

However, democracy is currently and suddenly in jeopardy because demagogues climbed your fence. Apparently democracy is in danger from fear-mongers and rumor-peddlers that have brought their poisonous tongues too close to leadership. So, leadership flipped the script and claimed a moral high ground as defenders of democracy; a manifestly self-serving move if ever there was one.

Evidently, there is no time to stop and contemplate why citizens are turning away from their elected officials and instead listening to fear-mongers and rumor-peddlers. Truth be told, it is not a new trend. It is a trend that has been on the rise, and it’s essential that the politicos among us understand the underlying causes behind this troubling shift which, once again, comes down to how people feel. How leadership makes them feel.

When people feel that their leaders are not serving their interests, it erodes their trust in the system and in leadership. They see decisions being made that seem out of touch with their needs and priorities. It’s no surprise that when their concerns are repeatedly disregarded or dismissed they begin to seek alternatives, even if those alternatives are driven by fear and rumors. The absence of good governance fuels a vacuum that demagogues are quick to exploit.

People also feel victimized by the very system they helped create through their votes. The policies and actions of their elected officials often have real and tangible effects on their lives, on their immediate and extended families and on their children’s future. When you are vindictive and do harm to your citizens, they remember.

They feel uninspired to stand up for “leadership” and “democracy” that haven’t made their lives better. When people are already struggling to make ends meet, how do you build up the nerve to tell them that the state of our democracy is a matter of concern that they should rally for? How do you ask people to stand up and protect a democracy that is conveniently in “danger” when they are on their knees and suffering from absurdities like a fuel clause. People will naturally seek out alternative sources of information and “guidance” when they feel, or actually do experience, that your policies are detrimental to them or insufficiently promote a respectable level of living.

When people do not see their living standards rise, their access to quality education, healthcare, and economic opportunities improve, they become disillusioned. When they perceive that their elected officials are more interested in partisan squabbling than in solving real problems, they turn to others who promise quick fixes, even if these promises are grounded in baseless rhetoric.

Fear-mongers seize upon feelings of resentment to inflame grievances and fan fears. Suspicion festers, and people become more susceptible to conspiracy theories and misinformation. It is essential to recognize that the rise of fear-mongers and rumor-peddlers is not solely a problem of the citizens themselves. It is the result of leaderships’ inability to understand how their people feel and govern accordingly.

As such, when calling for the defense of our democracy against perceived or real dangers, leadership should consider arming the population with weapons with which to proudly defend our democracy. Start with a sword of good governance, a heavy armor of trust, and a shield of transparency. Implement unwavering people-centered priorities which will serve as the helmet that completes their battle readiness. Give them a sense of security, complete justification for their vote, and unwavering faith in the future.

Michael R. Granger

At the risk of making a bad pun, “The signs are everywhere.” Quite literally as it turns out. The roads are lined end to end with the smiling portraits of the various candidates for the upcoming elections. This newspaper is littered with glowing statements of intent to bring milk and honey to the electorate if only they would cast a vote in their direction. I get it. And it’s no better or different anywhere else except for one critical thing. That single thing is a healthy dose of cynicism and a critical and inquisitive media.

At a guess I think I must have passed pictures of 60 candidates from four different organizations. Of these 60 I recognized a few names and faces but the others are ghosts. Are they, or are any of the others, any good at what they do? Who knows? And why don’t we know? Simple, no one is asking them that question. And so I suggest that this newspaper publish the resume of each candidate. A real resume, not a political speech or manifesto full of pie-in-the-sky promises but a nuts-and-bolts resume.

You know … Formal education, grades and how that education applies to what they are running for. Accredited professional training and certifications that give them the training they need to run a country. The last three jobs held and what job they hold now. References from that job. If the last job was as some sort of politician, list the accomplishments they achieved during that tenure and their attendance and expense record. You know, the kind of information you would have to provide if you were applying for a manager's job at Burger King or Domino’s or something.

After all, shouldn’t the people you elect actually have the credentials necessary to do the job?

How many times have they promised to deal with the short-term contract issue yet nothing ever happens administration after administration. How long has the Mullet Bay thing gone on or GEBE been out of control? And how many times is it that the first thing the newly-minted or appointed politician does is hire a consultant or some sort of expert to solve the problems the politician or appointee claimed they already knew how to solve when they were running for office?

I know it’s a novel concept, but why not actually elect people that know what they are doing in the first place and not need the consultants or experts? And how do you know if they know what they are doing or are any good at it?

Another novel concept, you ask them straight up for their qualifications. Just like you would ask the person you hired to paint your house if he ever painted a house before or knew how to do it.

I remember about 20 years ago , an individual wrote a letter to the editor complaining that the bank had turned him down for a business loan. The basis of his complaint was that the bank was being terribly unreasonable for noting his complete absence of credentials, asking him for a business plan in writing and questioning him on the fact that he knew nothing about the business he proposed to run. This individual then became the pet of a specific political party and was soon shuffled into the directorship of a company dealing with critical infrastructure that he then ran into the ground. He was rewarded for that failure by getting appointed to an even more important company which he is currently and single-handedly running into the ground.

Mark Twain said it best. “You deserve the government you elect.” And was he ever so right about that.

I am reminded what was said at a VROMI [Ministry of Public Housing, Spatial Planning, Environment and Infrastructure – Ed.] hearing in answer to a charge that the specifications provided for a building permit were simply and basically wrong. When questioned about it the defendant's lawyer said simply and without any embarrassment, “Well you know how politicians are, you can't believe anything they say.” And mind you, that was the lawyer for the politician himself speaking on the record.

And so I ask because no one else seems to, “Who are all these people on the signs and what have they ever done in their lives that that says they are qualified in any way to run your country?” I would really like to know. And maybe you should as well before the curtain closes on that booth.

Steven Johnson

Dear Editor,

Someone who knows that I put lyrics for a calypso together, told me. Number two is put there to keep an eye on number one. Otherwise that five-year deal is done.

Now I don' know where he is coming from. So, I stuttered while acting dumb. He still won't slacken so I start to beg. He says, come on Russell you know you only pulling my leg. So, you mean you don' know nothing about the big steal. WhatsApp was full of the illegal deals.

I know him from since I was going school. My mother always tell us they playing us for fools. And as he went on, a thought came to my head. So, I say let me sing "Lady in Red”. You see what I always say about the Dutch. They always come up swinging in the clutch. But for me that was only a little jab. I believe they have a few more to grab. They just do that to see who that move going frighten. Just wait you going see how the noose going tighten. .

He watched me and said, You's a real crook. From you they can't hide nothing in a book. Then he tell me who don't like it, I don't care, but I'm going to say something for everybody to hear. N.A. is the first and only party to last four years. So, from now ah telling them you, my vote is theirs.

So, I told him that we don't know who the other candidates are yet. He say those jokers only looking for what they can get. That was something I definitely could not dispute. Because government after government followed suit. Another surprise we got after asking in so many different ways. The old age pensioners would finally get a raise. .

Because it is my custom to vote for the individual and not for a party. The work that Anna is doing makes my choice easy. And to repeat what my father taught me, really makes a man; is to be able to disagree with another man while shaking his hand..

Russell A. Simmons