SIR— When I listened to T.D. Jakes on Light House TV on Monday, I realised how right he was on role models.
I would like to speak in similar fashion that most of those we take as role models may not necessarily be fit for the roles we attribute to them.
We make heroes of misfits just because they have talent or ability or money in one area or another.
I will illustrate the above with the following examples:
1. Is it right to use a film star who has been through five, six or seven marriages as an example of a role model in relationships just because he or she is a “star” and has lots of money?
2. Should we pick on an athlete (and there are many wonderful athletes out there) to be a good role model for our children, just because he/she is talented when he/she has greatly flopped in family life or other social spheres? (You will realise many famous athletes have been in trouble with the law).
3. What about the many so-called leaders who have failed to manage their homes and have strings of extra-marital relationships? Should we consider them role models just because they are members of parliament, ministers, VIPs when they go around telling our youth and children to imbibe their failed values?
The serious question to all who care is: Who should be the role models for our children? Should we follow the “idols” of the West? No, let’s have real people of character as our role models. The world is full of humble, simple but solid people of character: Take Billy Graham, for example, or the late Mother Theresa, or the late Festo Kivengere and many others. They are better than thousands of Hollywood stars and others who regularly appear in the press but are miserable failures in family or other social areas, but are called “stars” or “idols”.

G.K. Gumkoma
Kampala