I am filled with grief when I think that a country which is grappling for finances could be spending money it can ill afford on elections which are not essential to life.

When I think of the struggling health service, the education system, roads and water, to name a few, I am left to wonder where our priorities lie. Certainly, the people must be represented and elections must be called under the circumstances to satisfy the requirements of the Constitution. But to spend a lot of money on at least four elections, to me, is a waste of time and money. In addition to the cost, must the country be put on hold again while these election campaigns are being carried out?

It would be such a great gift to the country and demonstration of political maturity and statesmanship if the contesting parties would cooperate with each other and decide not to nominate opposing candidates, allowing the party which was elected to keep the seats.

Worthwhile project

After all a general election is not all that far away. They could both decide on a worthwhile project in the constituency that would benefit all the people and contribute some of the campaign funds to that project. I am sure that all the schools or health centres in those constituencies are not in tip-top conditions.

A question I always ask is - how come so many people can turn out to support candidates on nomination days? These couldn't be serious working people or they wouldn't have time for that. Does it also point to the level of unemployment and poverty in the country? Is it the same in the countries we run to with the begging or borrowing pan? I admit that I am politically naive.

I am, etc.,

TREVOR SAMUELS

tsamuels@anngel.com