Who reads us anyway

First, a confession: until my first column I never read any opinion pieces. Now I read most - and wonder if anyone reads us? Do newspapers use it as a marketing ploy, or is it just a waste of newsprint costing many a tree? Perhaps a fad that newspapers are obliged to follow to appear to be no less?
Most newspapers have three to four op-eds - every single day. That's a lot of paper to wrap pakoras in, as the honourable Court famously observed.
Who reads them is perhaps a second order question. Who writes them, and why, intrigues us more. We are certain it is not for pecuniary reasons. For most that is not a motivation; for others parsimony of the newspaper industry, no doubt driven by a sharp cost-benefit analysis, ensures there are no taxes to withhold.
Apart from the occasional griffin - big name, bigger ego -there is a whole corps of faithful who churn out a piece a week. Some septuagenarians have been at it for close to half a century now, something that eluded Mis|You in their valedictory outing in some place called Roseau that sounds more like a drink than a Cricketing mecca.
For a few, it is both life and living, and with a nod to Eliot, not missing much in between. They 'just do it', though we doubt if it keeps the kitchen going.
Our regiment of columnists has a touch of trooping the colour. Each parades his own flag. Many have had careers in public service, who can be forgiven for telling us what should be done which couldn't be done when they were in office. Some are specialists, week after week dwelling on their chosen field - political economy, foreign policy, wondrous world of science, legal matters, civ-mil. Then there are the generalists who expound on whatever catches their fancy, from Absolutism to Zionism, and everything in between.
There is the emigre commenting on motherland, or reporting on events from the adopted land that seldom mean much to us. There are also the migrants whose writings have a 'feel good' fragrance. The locals, of course, won't go there for fear of being accused of having lost it; for them the script is 'fulminate or perish'. Certain contributors (to the English dailies) find themselves twixt émigré and migrant: body is here but soul in the 'old country'. It doesn't matter if the Guardian wouldn't publish them but their tinsel prose, laced with a vocabulary that makes us reach out for the dictionary, no doubt does the alma mater proud.
Most do a good job of wordsmithing - flowing ease, syntax-perfect, occasional dash of humour. Some have crafted their own style that doesn't need to be copyrighted because it is, well, unique. Few, particularly in the Urdu medium, are quite poetic, if not prophetic.
Moving from why they write to what they write - the 'so what' of it - we encounter treacherous waters. We are not sure if their columns are designed to make the reader a wiser person, open up new vistas, or use the rear view mirror to predict the future.
It surely doesn't give the government a singed appearance if the idea is to burn a fire under it. Nor do those who 'control' the government have time for these Delphic pronouncements. Electronic media is much more fun - and you don't need to be literate to receive a wholesome education, or learn the art of warfare.
There are always some brilliant exceptions but, typically, the column is an essay in frustration, hoping to appeal to the already frustrated. It can also get a tad nauseating when piece after piece turns out to be a shadow of what is already in public domain. Elegantly worded denouncements do not make up for ordinariness.
Mercifully, most stop at hammering in the problem and lashing out at the wicked and the incompetent for their known failures - often using a sledgehammer where a click of tongue would do.
Some, however, like to play the reformer, with their quick-fix recipes.
We have often wondered why the government does not act on the doughty advice the reformers are so full of. We can understand government not acting on advice, free and abundant, where there is a conflict of interest - political, financial, or administrative. But why doesn't the government, for instance, stop borrowing when our eminent scribes so powerfully tell it not to? Does it occur to them that the government continues to borrow not because it is infatuated with the idea but because it has little choice in the matter?
In matters of competence it is easy to hold 'sofa cabinet' and premium on loyalty the prime suspects, without pausing to give the devil its due. The caveat of conflict of interest aside, which government doesn't want to perform, to produce results? Shouldn't we drill a bit deeper to see why it cannot? If corruption can't be rooted out, despite a preponderance of anti-corruption laws and agencies, and remains a stubborn constant through all governments, doesn't it tell us more about us the people? Basic law of economics: so long as there is demand there will be supply, as so amply demonstrated by the oldest profession. Laws work only if the great majority believes in them.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with being the fifth column. Indeed, there is an abiding need for it. If the Emperor wears no clothes it needs to be said. What also needs to be said is 'why not'.
But surely, there is enough 'what' there for the fan clubs that some regulars have secured for themselves. That's what keeps them going - in search of the next week's topic. There may be no Pulitzers in sight, but surely they deserve a lifetime achievement award.
Now the moment of truth: If there is not much point to being a weekly columnist - and we have no delusions of grandeur, nor hopes of a fan club - what makes us indulge in this weekly expiation?
Quite simply, how else can we have a 'conversation' with our favourite Ministers - the Professor, the Engineer, and the Accountant? Just the thought of their lurking someplace to furtively read us makes us keep coming back for more!
We can't resist a panga. Thank you Editor for your indulgence!
[email protected]