Reimagining performance of public officials: Examining the notion of BRIGHTNESS

Professor Canute Thompson

Neo-colonial vestige

There is a neo-colonial vestige in Jamaica which is rooted in the country’s education and wider social system, which assigns the labels of bright and dunce to people, especially children.  The assigned label often remains with the child / person for a long time (in some instances for life).  One of the insidious elements of this labelling is that it has potential to shape the self-understanding of the child; thus, those who are unlucky to have the label of “not bright” or “dunce” placed on them, grow up believing that those words are valid descriptions of their character and capacity.  At the same time, those with the negative label of “not bright” or “dunce” assume that those who are bright, are inherently superior to them.

One of the insidious elements of this labelling is that it has potential to shape the self-understanding of the child; thus, those who are unlucky to have the label of “not bright” or “dunce” placed on them, grow up believing that those words are valid descriptions of their character and capacity. 

This labelling is rooted in classism and racism.  During the colonial period the black child was seen as “not bright” or “dunce” and was expected to underperform academically and socio-culturally while the brown and white children were seen as bright and were expected to perform well, and even when they did not, they would be given concessions and accommodations (what Jamaicans call blys) and assessed as having done well.  Brightness and dunceness were also associated with being “pretty” or “ugly”, thus a bright child was seen as the pretty child while the dunce child seen as ugly.

There were those rare exceptions and surprises where a black child performed well academically and was elevated to the rank of being called bright (and handsome), but the social system protected an underperforming brown or white child from falling into the category of dunce or ugly.

Many of these beliefs and practices continue to haunt our education system, as schools which have a majority population of brown students, or a fair number of white students are treated differently to those that have a preponderance of black (and in most cases inner city of rural students).  In the United States of America, we see this expressed in the form of “white privilege” versus “exclusion of blacks” and the contempt shown by the powerful to what they regard as unjust affirmative action. So American society will tolerate rich and white children stealing their way into “Ivy League” universities on the basis that they are entitled to such prestigious placements, but when blacks enter either on merit or though some equity-based system those universities are criticized. These issues have been the subject of criminal prosecution and civil suits.

Many of these beliefs and practices continue to haunt our education system, as schools which have a majority population of brown students, or a fair number of white students are treated differently to those that have a preponderance of black (and in most cases inner city of rural students). 

The notion of “brightness” in the lexicon of Jamaican politics

The insidious issue of brightness has found it way (perhaps once again) in political discourse in Jamaica, this time with Minister Nigel Clarke being described by grassroots JLP supporters, bloggers, and owners of big businesses as being bright. 

Dr. Nigel Clarke, Minister of Finance and the Public Service, Jamaica

I do not care whether Nigel Clarke is bright or not, and neither do I know; nor do I believe it is a relevant consideration for his job.  But I do care that he is being called bright for the simple reason that by doing so, it could lead many little boys and girls who are at an impressionable stage of their development to believe that the measure of doing well is found in being called bright, and if they have been doused with the toxic communication that they are not bright, it could lead them to doubt themselves (worse) and give up.

I do not care whether Nigel Clarke is bright or not, and neither do I know; nor do I believe it is a relevant consideration for his job.  But I do care that he is being called bright for the simple reason that by doing so, it could lead many little boys and girls who are at an impressionable stage of their development to believe that the measure of doing well is found in being called bright, and if they have been doused with the toxic communication that they are not bright, it could lead them to doubt themselves (worse) and give up.

I took the opportunity to see if the word “bright” appeared in any respected dictionaries and found a common meaning is “intelligent”, “quick learner”, “talented”, “clever”. Interestingly, one source offered the Jamaican version of the meaning of the word as “rude” and “fresh” (and I know that we can identify with the expression “darn bright” or “she fresh eeh”).

But in the context of the usage of the word, the intended meaning of those who refer to Minister Clarke as bright is that he is intelligent and talented.

The ascription of brightness: My critique and perspective

I have already shared one difficulty I have with the use of the label bright, namely that it can have a dampening effect on children who see their peers being so labelled and worse if they are given the opposite label of being dunce.  But my critique goes further, and I express it in the form of a question: Of what use is intelligence or quickness to learn if it does not get the job done? Thus, I contend intelligence is not an end in, and of, itself. Intelligence is only good and valuable if it can get the job done.  In my theory, therefore, my use of the word bright or brilliant is to describe the quality of work a person has done.  So, I see Sir Clive Lloyd and Sir Viv Richards, for example, and many of the West Indian cricketers of their generation as bright because they not only repeatedly delivered spectacular performances, but got the job done – they won matches.  The same can be said of Usain Bolt and Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, and many artistes and tradesmen, whose exceptional performances are world-renowned.

Sir Viv Richards
Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce

Assessing the performance of Minister Nigel Clarke

So, while I do not adopt the use of the words ‘bright’ or ‘brilliant’ as descriptors of persons, I do so in relation to their performance. With the parameters or principles for what I call bright or brilliant being that the person performs well and gets the job done, I want to briefly examine the performance of Minister Nigel Clarke whom some describe as bright but appear to focus in their assessment on his person (his delivery, diction, etc). I will show, based on my analysis of his performance in eight (8) critical areas, that his performance is neither spectacular nor unique, and at best it is mediocre and in some cases poor.

  • Economic growth. The JLP administration promised that it would grow the Jamaican economy by 5% each year for a four-year period starting in 2016. Nigel Clarke was a member of the Economic Growth Council and later became Minister of Finance. The economy grew by an average of 1% each year which means that the performance was 20% of the target.  This performance was NOT spectacular.
  • Quality jobs. Although unemployment has fallen to record low limits, in addition to the fact that many have opted out of the economy and are not seeking jobs, most workers are struggling, and many earn minimum or near minimum wages.
  • Public Sector Compensation Review. Minister Clarke boasted that what he was undertaking in the public sector compensation review was the most far-reaching and bold review ever undertaken. Implementation begun in December 2022. As at March 2024, some fifteen months later, many public sector groups have unresolved issues and some have not yet been included, while others have taken or threatened industrial action. Many report that they are worse off, and others say they are no better off.

In addition, there were widespread protests over the increases the political directorate gave itself.  A salient feature of the approach to the review was what I call the element of deception.  Despite knowing that the political class was set to get a massive increase of over 200%, Minister Clarke kept that secret and cajoled, threatened, and pressured public sector groups into signing and only after they had signed, he made the disclosure of the over 200% increase. His performance in this area is NOT exceptional or admirable.

  • National Census. A national census is a once in a decade exercise which is intended to provide vital information for planning and development. A census is not a sampling of the population. In a census, everyone must be counted.  After missing several commencement and completion deadlines, the census was said to be completed, but thousands of citizens have not been counted. It means that the census data will NOT be credible.  As the Minister with responsibility for planning, this census exercise was a key performance indicator of his leadership in planning. His performance in this area has been poor.
  • Public Sector Transformation. The compensation review was part of an overall public sector transformation exercise.  While there have been pockets of improvement in services, such as the ability to pay taxes online, there is a far way to go to experience quality service across the public sector.  I would, however, give a FAIR rating in this area.
  • Accountability of Boards and Protection of Public Funds. As Minister with responsibility for the country’s finances, Clarke has the responsibility for ensuring that he makes new, and applies existing, law to protect public funds, limiting the opportunity for corruption and waste, while ensuring boards of public corporations and other entities produce annual reports, are held accountable, and that only persons who pass fit and proper tests serve on boards. The performance in this area has been poor as several Auditor General reports show.  But worse, despite the poor track record in the accountability of ministries and agencies, Minister Clarke has doubled the limits for funds that ministries may spend without going to tender or doing sole source or limited procurement.  This measure will likely fuel corruption.
  • Inflation and Technical Analysis: With low inflation being a signature test of the performance of the economy, Minister Clarke took the decision to lower bus fares in the Kingston Metropolitan Transport Region (KMTR). He was told by his Opposition counterpart, and others, that the move would not lower inflation. He insisted that it would. The result it that it did not. One would have expected a Minister of Finance to have a better grasp of a matter so simple as this.
  • Handling of the Stocks and Securities Ltd (SSL) Crisis: A report of a rogue financial institution sat on the desk (or got lost in a filing cabinet) of the Minister. Questions abound about how the institution could have been left to continue its rogue ways for several months. Written reports cannot be the only ways in which the Minister communicates with the regulatory body, the Financial Services Commission. One of the investors in SSL was the Prime Minister whose personal circumstances, perspicacity, or access to information led him to bolt from the institution taking his funds before its collapse.

The Minister promised that the US Federal Bureau of Investigation would assist with the probe. To date, many mysteries surround the collapse of the entity and only one person, a self-confessed actor, has been arrested.  The Minister has A LOT of explaining to do.

Some Areas of Credible (but not ingenious) Performance

There are three areas of credible performance for which the Minister of Finance may take some credit. These are:

  • A healthy balance of Net International Reserves (but the government inherited a healthy balance in 2016).
  • Good ratings by international rating agencies
  • Quick recovery of the economy after COVID-19.

When the areas of weak or poor performance are laid side by side with the areas of strong or good performance, it is my assessment that the performance of the Minister of Finance is merely fair, and nowhere near exceptional or bright!


Canute Thompson is Professor of Educational Policy, Planning and Leadership at The University of the West Indies, Mona Campus, a social activist, and author of eight books and eighteen journal articles.

His academic achievements include:

  • Two Principal’s Awards in 2023 for research activity generating the most funds, and research activity with the most development impacts, serving as Project Director for a project executed by the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning.
  • A 2022 Bronze place winner in the Independent Publisher Book Awards for his book, Education and Development: Policy Imperatives for Jamaica and the Caribbean.
  • A 2021 finalist in The Vice-Chancellor’s Award for Excellence for all-round excellent performance in Outstanding Teaching, Outstanding Research Accomplishments, Outstanding Service to the University Community, Outstanding Public Service.
  • A 2021 Principal’s Award for Most Outstanding Researcher.
  • Two Principal’s Awards in 2020 for Most Outstanding Researcher and Best Publication for his book, Reimagining Educational Leadership in the Caribbean.

1 thought on “Reimagining performance of public officials: Examining the notion of BRIGHTNESS”

  1. Very good analysis .The references used give support to the analysis and provide the basis for an objective critique.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *