Tweet
Sunday | May 23, 2010
Playing party 'politricks'
Published: Sunday | May 23, 2010
Cooper
Carolyn Cooper, Contributor
Bruce Golding's abortive attempt to resign as leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) raises far more questions than it answers. Golding's failure to concede defeat unequivocally and accede to the wishes of civil society confirms our collective fear that, even in the face of a national crisis of unprece-dented proportions, indi-vidual integrity must yield to the demands of partisan politics.
The decision of the Central Excecutive of the JLP not to accept Golding's resignation reinforces the popular perception that the function of leader of the party takes precedence over the role of [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]prime [COLOR=orange !important]minister[/color][/color][/color]. Propping up the fallen leader appears to be a much higher priority than preserving the integrity of the high office of prime minister.
Ironically, this 'separation of powers' is precisely what got Mr Golding into trouble in the first place. In the matter of that fateful sanctioning of the decision to hire the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to lobby on behalf of the JLP, Mr Golding claimed that his sacrosanct role as prime minister could not at all be compromised by his actions as leader of the JLP.
Tragedy or Farce?
Let us suppose that Mr Golding is, indeed, right, and the roles and responsibilities of prime minister and leader of the [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]party[/color][/color] are, in fact, separate and unequal. Does this mean that, as leader of the party, he was entitled to lie about sanctioning the decision to engage [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]lobbyists[/color][/color] on behalf of a top-ranking member of his constituency?
Should there be one standard of integrity for the prime minister and another for the leader of the Jamaica Labour Party? It would appear that the Central Executive of the JLP unanimously says yes. Otherwise, the Central Executive would have accepted Mr Golding's resignation. If, in clear conscience - as I would like to believe - Mr Golding did acknowledge that he had grievously erred and had tarnished the image of both leader of the party and prime minister, he should have been allowed to redeem himself by resigning from both posts.
In a devilish twist, the Central Executive's concerted refusal to accept Mr Golding's honourable resignation may be an ever bigger punishment than we can fully imagine: a guilt-ridden man, forced to live with a demanding conscience that will give him no peace. This is the drama of which great tragedy is made. Shakespeare or Trevor Rhone could do no better than this.
Of course, there are sceptics who will cynically conclude that the resignation ploy was nothing but a farce. The gesture of offering to resign allows Mr Golding to appear penitent: 'Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa'. The compassionate refusal of the Central Executive to accept the resignation becomes an act of absolution. The not-quite-guilty leader of the party is forgiven and it's back to business as usual for the not-quite-innocent prime minister.
Analysis of the language of Mr Golding's apology to the nation does, I think, provide some evidence in support of the cynics who doubt the credibility of the prime minister's contrite posture. The prevailing tone of Mr Golding's speech is one of religious piety. In the language of fundamentalist Christianity, Mr Golding seeks 'forgiveness' and 'atonement' for sin.
Religion versus Politics
This is the rhetoric of church, not [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]state [COLOR=orange !important]politics[/color][/color][/color]. Mr Golding is appealing to passion, not reason. He does not [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]present[/color][/color] his error of judgement as a matter of poor governance. Taken out of the arena of Parliament and into the sanctuary of the Church, Mr Golding's evasion of the full truth of the hiring of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips becomes a matter of sin, and not a judicial issue that might require legal sanctions. Furthermore, it is a sin of omission - not telling all - rather than commission.
Mr Golding knows his Bible very well, especially the New Testament, with its advocacy of liberating 'grace' over damning Old Testament 'law'. By appealing to the fundamentalist Christian values of the majority of Jamaicans, Mr Golding appears to be hoping that he will simply be washed in the blood of the Lamb and will rise forth from this baptism as a new creature in Christ Jesus. Born-again Bruce will start over with a brand new slate on which he will be very careful about writing letters.
But is it really honourable for Mr Golding to try to salvage his political career by claiming to want to save his soul? Even as he asks the Jamaican people to forgive his trespasses, he is still testing our faith. As prime minister, Golding argued that it was a matter of principle not to agree hurriedly to the infamous extradition request. What has changed to make the extradition now acceptable? What "additional information" has the prime minister recently received? It appears as if political expediency supersedes principle.
The most puzzling statement made by Mr Golding in his speech of 'atonement' is this: "... I am committing myself to do everything that is humanly possible to repair the damage that has been done to that trust." Oddly enough, the prime minister does not appear to think that it is 'humanly possible' for him simply to resign. Apparently, it would take divine intervention.
Convinced that his resignation is not an appropriate sacrifice to offer on the altar of atonement, Mr Golding seems to want us to resign ourselves to the prospect that he is the very best candidate the Jamaica Labour Party can offer the nation as prime minister. Perhaps, he's right. And, if so, that's the real tragedy.
Carolyn Cooper is professor of literary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
Send feedback to: karokupa@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com
- Kingston
- 77°F
Playing party 'politricks'
Published: Sunday | May 23, 2010
Cooper
Carolyn Cooper, Contributor
Bruce Golding's abortive attempt to resign as leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) raises far more questions than it answers. Golding's failure to concede defeat unequivocally and accede to the wishes of civil society confirms our collective fear that, even in the face of a national crisis of unprece-dented proportions, indi-vidual integrity must yield to the demands of partisan politics.
The decision of the Central Excecutive of the JLP not to accept Golding's resignation reinforces the popular perception that the function of leader of the party takes precedence over the role of [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]prime [COLOR=orange !important]minister[/color][/color][/color]. Propping up the fallen leader appears to be a much higher priority than preserving the integrity of the high office of prime minister.
Ironically, this 'separation of powers' is precisely what got Mr Golding into trouble in the first place. In the matter of that fateful sanctioning of the decision to hire the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips to lobby on behalf of the JLP, Mr Golding claimed that his sacrosanct role as prime minister could not at all be compromised by his actions as leader of the JLP.
Tragedy or Farce?
Let us suppose that Mr Golding is, indeed, right, and the roles and responsibilities of prime minister and leader of the [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]party[/color][/color] are, in fact, separate and unequal. Does this mean that, as leader of the party, he was entitled to lie about sanctioning the decision to engage [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]lobbyists[/color][/color] on behalf of a top-ranking member of his constituency?
Should there be one standard of integrity for the prime minister and another for the leader of the Jamaica Labour Party? It would appear that the Central Executive of the JLP unanimously says yes. Otherwise, the Central Executive would have accepted Mr Golding's resignation. If, in clear conscience - as I would like to believe - Mr Golding did acknowledge that he had grievously erred and had tarnished the image of both leader of the party and prime minister, he should have been allowed to redeem himself by resigning from both posts.
In a devilish twist, the Central Executive's concerted refusal to accept Mr Golding's honourable resignation may be an ever bigger punishment than we can fully imagine: a guilt-ridden man, forced to live with a demanding conscience that will give him no peace. This is the drama of which great tragedy is made. Shakespeare or Trevor Rhone could do no better than this.
Of course, there are sceptics who will cynically conclude that the resignation ploy was nothing but a farce. The gesture of offering to resign allows Mr Golding to appear penitent: 'Mea culpa. Mea maxima culpa'. The compassionate refusal of the Central Executive to accept the resignation becomes an act of absolution. The not-quite-guilty leader of the party is forgiven and it's back to business as usual for the not-quite-innocent prime minister.
Analysis of the language of Mr Golding's apology to the nation does, I think, provide some evidence in support of the cynics who doubt the credibility of the prime minister's contrite posture. The prevailing tone of Mr Golding's speech is one of religious piety. In the language of fundamentalist Christianity, Mr Golding seeks 'forgiveness' and 'atonement' for sin.
Religion versus Politics
This is the rhetoric of church, not [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]state [COLOR=orange !important]politics[/color][/color][/color]. Mr Golding is appealing to passion, not reason. He does not [COLOR=orange !important][COLOR=orange !important]present[/color][/color] his error of judgement as a matter of poor governance. Taken out of the arena of Parliament and into the sanctuary of the Church, Mr Golding's evasion of the full truth of the hiring of Manatt, Phelps & Phillips becomes a matter of sin, and not a judicial issue that might require legal sanctions. Furthermore, it is a sin of omission - not telling all - rather than commission.
Mr Golding knows his Bible very well, especially the New Testament, with its advocacy of liberating 'grace' over damning Old Testament 'law'. By appealing to the fundamentalist Christian values of the majority of Jamaicans, Mr Golding appears to be hoping that he will simply be washed in the blood of the Lamb and will rise forth from this baptism as a new creature in Christ Jesus. Born-again Bruce will start over with a brand new slate on which he will be very careful about writing letters.
But is it really honourable for Mr Golding to try to salvage his political career by claiming to want to save his soul? Even as he asks the Jamaican people to forgive his trespasses, he is still testing our faith. As prime minister, Golding argued that it was a matter of principle not to agree hurriedly to the infamous extradition request. What has changed to make the extradition now acceptable? What "additional information" has the prime minister recently received? It appears as if political expediency supersedes principle.
The most puzzling statement made by Mr Golding in his speech of 'atonement' is this: "... I am committing myself to do everything that is humanly possible to repair the damage that has been done to that trust." Oddly enough, the prime minister does not appear to think that it is 'humanly possible' for him simply to resign. Apparently, it would take divine intervention.
Convinced that his resignation is not an appropriate sacrifice to offer on the altar of atonement, Mr Golding seems to want us to resign ourselves to the prospect that he is the very best candidate the Jamaica Labour Party can offer the nation as prime minister. Perhaps, he's right. And, if so, that's the real tragedy.
Carolyn Cooper is professor of literary and cultural studies at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
Send feedback to: karokupa@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com