Tweet
Leadership, intransigence and arrogance
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, June 20, 2010
MANY of us as Jamaicans entertain a kind of romantic image of what it is like to live in a small island territory. We often make reference to the quality of life which seems to give to persons a greater sense of humanness, meaning, and purpose than that which is possible in the large industrialised societies of the north.
Indeed, it is part of the reason why many Jamaican men refuse to migrate, or decide to return home shortly after migrating to North America, while their wives remain with the children, defending and pursuing what is perceived to be a better future for the family. The men find the anonymity, structure, the lack of spontaneity, and the restricted social life in these societies intolerable.
What we often overlook in all of this romanticism are some harsh realities about life in small societies like ours, especially as these relate to politics and the ordering of our system of governance. While there is no perfect political system or culture anywhere, it is also true to say that some of the larger and more developed nations have developed a system of politics and governance which has certain controls and balances in place, and which are able to bring a sense of balance to the operations of the various institutions and offices of power.
Because of our failure to develop some of these controls, we have a history of political leaders who often operate as if they are above the law or are neither subject to certain institutional controls nor accountable to the people while they are in office. Indeed, some of the founding fathers of modern Caribbean society, including such persons as VC Bird, Eric Gary, Robert Bradshaw, and Alexander Bustamante, have left a legacy of colourful stories of ways in which they acted as if subject to no higher authority than themselves in certain matters.
The legacy is still with us as we watch how some of our leaders within the system of governance of various political shades seek to ignore societal demands for changes and a greater sense of accountability, or operate in collusion across the different sides of the House of Parliament in order to frustrate the will of the people.
The events of the last few weeks have brought to the fore some of the most unsavoury aspects of this dynamic. Chief among these has been the role which persons elected to Parliament have played in the creation of political garrisons and the alliance with criminal elements and criminality in order to provide the muscle and political control necessary to keep communities united in their support of a particular political party or candidate.
Now that things have come to a head in the events leading up to the declaration of the limited State of Emergency and the overwhelming call for the Government and the Opposition to take drastic steps to rid the country of corruption and to sever the ties with garrisons and criminality, one now sees the gymnastics of those in politics who want to play the old games and keep the status quo going.
In this regard, Professor Trevor Munroe hit the nail on the head in his address to the Doctor Bird Chapter of the Project Management Institute at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel just over a week ago. According to a report carried in this paper, he called on the Parliament to change the law to enable the suspension of embattled members of the House, like Kern Spencer and Joseph Hibbert, while they are under investigation for alleged acts of corruption.
Professor Munroe, in making that declaration, was not expressing a novel idea but was being bold enough to declare publicly what too many Jamaicans are only prepared to discuss on their verandahs, or not discuss at all because of a sense of fear generated in a political culture in which people want to attack each other for expressing ideas which do not seem to follow a particular party line.
It is an affront to the people of our nation to have persons who have been accused of such serious crimes continue to be a part of the Parliament of this land. For them to participate in the legislative process, which is being called upon at this time to address issues of corruption and to pass the new crime bills while under interdiction, should be anathema to everyone.
Sadly though, this has not been the response from everyone. The response from some political quarters on both sides of the political divide has had a predictable quality to it. The veteran Jamaica Labour Party General Secretary Karl Samuda has scoffed at the idea. He is quoted as saying "the accused members stepping aside was not a simple matter that could be repaired". He continued: "They are representatives of the people, and I think that the focus should be on whether or not the people find them (remaining in the House) objectionable; so far we have found no evidence that this is the case. If Joe Hibbert were to step aside and the people elected someone to take his place, what would that person do if he (Hibbert) is found innocent? It doesn't work that way."
His argument has been based on two principles. The first has to do with the law. The merits of the case seem to reside on whether or not the offender is found guilty of breaking the law by the Court, and if at the end of the process the person is vindicated, having been suspended, how the situation will then be repaired. It seems to me that the issue is about more than just the letter of the law.
There are issues of morality here which leadership in the political realm must also embrace. There are many spheres of life in which moral failure leads to the suspension and/or resignation of persons. Indeed, in our own society, as imperfect as it is, members of our police force are often removed from duties when under investigation or interdiction. They do not have to be proven guilty in a court of law before such action can be taken.
So the question which Professor Munroe's pronouncement raises is this, why have our parliamentarians not moved to pass laws that would make politicians subject to the same principles which operate in other spheres of the life of society?
The second principle which is present in the general secretary's response is the understanding of political leadership in a democratic society. The suggestion of the general secretary seems to be that on a matter of morality and the status of an interdicted member of the House there needs to be a "poll" to measure public opinion. The poll which he has taken has returned results to the effect that there is no strong support for such a course of action in the case of Mr Hibbert.
I am not sure which constituency he has polled, but not only is he wrong in the results he reports, but the very principle that a poll is the way to go for parliamentarians to take a decision in this matter is unfortunate. The National Anthem of Jamaica has lines to this effect: "To our leaders, Great Defender, grant true wisdom from above".
This prayer speaks to an understanding of leadership which not only reflects popular sentiments but which provides the kind of visionary and moral leadership which every society demands of its leaders. It is, I suggest, on this basis that the next clause of our anthem makes sense and becomes a reality, "Justice, truth, be ours forever..."
This country stands in need at this time, in the most urgent way, of political leaders who are above reproach, whose hands are clean, and who are prepared to make laws and lead us along a path on which we can tackle corruption, dismantle garrisons, and end criminality. Intransigence and arrogance on the part of our political leaders in defiance of the just demands of the citizens are unacceptable.
The response from another veteran spokesperson from the Opposition party has been equally intriguing. Senator AJ Nicholson has chosen to castigate Professor Munroe for double talk because he did not call for the resignation of Prime Minister Bruce Golding in the same breath in which he called for the suspension of other parliamentarians.
While I believe that there is merit in the omission to which Senator Nicholson points, it is sad that he was not able to throw the weight of his office and position in the Opposition party and the Parliament behind the call for the suspension of the two members, one of them a member of his own party. It would have given so much more credibility to his position.
What has come across is an attempt to score another political point by focusing on the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party Government. This certainly serves the Opposition party interests very well. The urgency of the moment requires more than partisan political posturing.
What should also be of great concern to us is that Professor Munroe also called for the implementation of another piece of legislation which both political parties have refused to enact during the time when they have constituted the government. It is legislation governing disclosure of the sources of funding by political parties. This is a serious moral and legal issue as it impacts on the way in which elected officials are compromised, and the way in which taxpayer funds and benefits are allocated.
There are many Jamaicans who find it convenient to claim the privilege of small state status when it suits us, and to say that we have never had that kind of legislation anywhere in the region, as if such a position constitutes vindication for inaction.
Professor Munroe is challenging us to make that move now, to clean up our house, and to make the transparency of which succeeding governments speak become a reality in this important sphere of our national life. Sadly, both spokespersons of the two major political parties have sought to pick up on issues which make no clear commitment on the pressing concern of the moment of which the professor speaks, and definitely have demonstrated an amazing sense of muteness on the matter of sources of political funding.
What is significant about this, from my perspective, is that these two gentlemen are veterans and grandfathers of our political system to whom we should look for wisdom and vision. This does not augur well for the future as we seem to be condemned to a small-state mentality that is selective in its treatment of accountability in its political culture.
What this country wants to hear from both General Secretary Karl Samuda and Senator AJ Nicholson is an unqualified support that they and their respective political parties are prepared to do the honourable thing and put in place the rules to suspend members of the Parliament who are under interdiction for moral and legal infractions, and also to take immediate steps toward the passage of legislation that will govern the funding of political parties.
In the long run, what the good professor has done is to point out that corruption can be a source of funding for ensuring election of persons to Parliament, corruption can go uncensored while one sits in Parliament, and then the citizens are to believe that the elected officials are credible in their utterances about their support for the elimination of corruption in our society.
-- Howard Gregory is the Suffran Bishop of Montego Bay
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...ogance_7721098
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, June 20, 2010
MANY of us as Jamaicans entertain a kind of romantic image of what it is like to live in a small island territory. We often make reference to the quality of life which seems to give to persons a greater sense of humanness, meaning, and purpose than that which is possible in the large industrialised societies of the north.
Indeed, it is part of the reason why many Jamaican men refuse to migrate, or decide to return home shortly after migrating to North America, while their wives remain with the children, defending and pursuing what is perceived to be a better future for the family. The men find the anonymity, structure, the lack of spontaneity, and the restricted social life in these societies intolerable.
What we often overlook in all of this romanticism are some harsh realities about life in small societies like ours, especially as these relate to politics and the ordering of our system of governance. While there is no perfect political system or culture anywhere, it is also true to say that some of the larger and more developed nations have developed a system of politics and governance which has certain controls and balances in place, and which are able to bring a sense of balance to the operations of the various institutions and offices of power.
Because of our failure to develop some of these controls, we have a history of political leaders who often operate as if they are above the law or are neither subject to certain institutional controls nor accountable to the people while they are in office. Indeed, some of the founding fathers of modern Caribbean society, including such persons as VC Bird, Eric Gary, Robert Bradshaw, and Alexander Bustamante, have left a legacy of colourful stories of ways in which they acted as if subject to no higher authority than themselves in certain matters.
The legacy is still with us as we watch how some of our leaders within the system of governance of various political shades seek to ignore societal demands for changes and a greater sense of accountability, or operate in collusion across the different sides of the House of Parliament in order to frustrate the will of the people.
The events of the last few weeks have brought to the fore some of the most unsavoury aspects of this dynamic. Chief among these has been the role which persons elected to Parliament have played in the creation of political garrisons and the alliance with criminal elements and criminality in order to provide the muscle and political control necessary to keep communities united in their support of a particular political party or candidate.
Now that things have come to a head in the events leading up to the declaration of the limited State of Emergency and the overwhelming call for the Government and the Opposition to take drastic steps to rid the country of corruption and to sever the ties with garrisons and criminality, one now sees the gymnastics of those in politics who want to play the old games and keep the status quo going.
In this regard, Professor Trevor Munroe hit the nail on the head in his address to the Doctor Bird Chapter of the Project Management Institute at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel just over a week ago. According to a report carried in this paper, he called on the Parliament to change the law to enable the suspension of embattled members of the House, like Kern Spencer and Joseph Hibbert, while they are under investigation for alleged acts of corruption.
Professor Munroe, in making that declaration, was not expressing a novel idea but was being bold enough to declare publicly what too many Jamaicans are only prepared to discuss on their verandahs, or not discuss at all because of a sense of fear generated in a political culture in which people want to attack each other for expressing ideas which do not seem to follow a particular party line.
It is an affront to the people of our nation to have persons who have been accused of such serious crimes continue to be a part of the Parliament of this land. For them to participate in the legislative process, which is being called upon at this time to address issues of corruption and to pass the new crime bills while under interdiction, should be anathema to everyone.
Sadly though, this has not been the response from everyone. The response from some political quarters on both sides of the political divide has had a predictable quality to it. The veteran Jamaica Labour Party General Secretary Karl Samuda has scoffed at the idea. He is quoted as saying "the accused members stepping aside was not a simple matter that could be repaired". He continued: "They are representatives of the people, and I think that the focus should be on whether or not the people find them (remaining in the House) objectionable; so far we have found no evidence that this is the case. If Joe Hibbert were to step aside and the people elected someone to take his place, what would that person do if he (Hibbert) is found innocent? It doesn't work that way."
His argument has been based on two principles. The first has to do with the law. The merits of the case seem to reside on whether or not the offender is found guilty of breaking the law by the Court, and if at the end of the process the person is vindicated, having been suspended, how the situation will then be repaired. It seems to me that the issue is about more than just the letter of the law.
There are issues of morality here which leadership in the political realm must also embrace. There are many spheres of life in which moral failure leads to the suspension and/or resignation of persons. Indeed, in our own society, as imperfect as it is, members of our police force are often removed from duties when under investigation or interdiction. They do not have to be proven guilty in a court of law before such action can be taken.
So the question which Professor Munroe's pronouncement raises is this, why have our parliamentarians not moved to pass laws that would make politicians subject to the same principles which operate in other spheres of the life of society?
The second principle which is present in the general secretary's response is the understanding of political leadership in a democratic society. The suggestion of the general secretary seems to be that on a matter of morality and the status of an interdicted member of the House there needs to be a "poll" to measure public opinion. The poll which he has taken has returned results to the effect that there is no strong support for such a course of action in the case of Mr Hibbert.
I am not sure which constituency he has polled, but not only is he wrong in the results he reports, but the very principle that a poll is the way to go for parliamentarians to take a decision in this matter is unfortunate. The National Anthem of Jamaica has lines to this effect: "To our leaders, Great Defender, grant true wisdom from above".
This prayer speaks to an understanding of leadership which not only reflects popular sentiments but which provides the kind of visionary and moral leadership which every society demands of its leaders. It is, I suggest, on this basis that the next clause of our anthem makes sense and becomes a reality, "Justice, truth, be ours forever..."
This country stands in need at this time, in the most urgent way, of political leaders who are above reproach, whose hands are clean, and who are prepared to make laws and lead us along a path on which we can tackle corruption, dismantle garrisons, and end criminality. Intransigence and arrogance on the part of our political leaders in defiance of the just demands of the citizens are unacceptable.
The response from another veteran spokesperson from the Opposition party has been equally intriguing. Senator AJ Nicholson has chosen to castigate Professor Munroe for double talk because he did not call for the resignation of Prime Minister Bruce Golding in the same breath in which he called for the suspension of other parliamentarians.
While I believe that there is merit in the omission to which Senator Nicholson points, it is sad that he was not able to throw the weight of his office and position in the Opposition party and the Parliament behind the call for the suspension of the two members, one of them a member of his own party. It would have given so much more credibility to his position.
What has come across is an attempt to score another political point by focusing on the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party Government. This certainly serves the Opposition party interests very well. The urgency of the moment requires more than partisan political posturing.
What should also be of great concern to us is that Professor Munroe also called for the implementation of another piece of legislation which both political parties have refused to enact during the time when they have constituted the government. It is legislation governing disclosure of the sources of funding by political parties. This is a serious moral and legal issue as it impacts on the way in which elected officials are compromised, and the way in which taxpayer funds and benefits are allocated.
There are many Jamaicans who find it convenient to claim the privilege of small state status when it suits us, and to say that we have never had that kind of legislation anywhere in the region, as if such a position constitutes vindication for inaction.
Professor Munroe is challenging us to make that move now, to clean up our house, and to make the transparency of which succeeding governments speak become a reality in this important sphere of our national life. Sadly, both spokespersons of the two major political parties have sought to pick up on issues which make no clear commitment on the pressing concern of the moment of which the professor speaks, and definitely have demonstrated an amazing sense of muteness on the matter of sources of political funding.
What is significant about this, from my perspective, is that these two gentlemen are veterans and grandfathers of our political system to whom we should look for wisdom and vision. This does not augur well for the future as we seem to be condemned to a small-state mentality that is selective in its treatment of accountability in its political culture.
What this country wants to hear from both General Secretary Karl Samuda and Senator AJ Nicholson is an unqualified support that they and their respective political parties are prepared to do the honourable thing and put in place the rules to suspend members of the Parliament who are under interdiction for moral and legal infractions, and also to take immediate steps toward the passage of legislation that will govern the funding of political parties.
In the long run, what the good professor has done is to point out that corruption can be a source of funding for ensuring election of persons to Parliament, corruption can go uncensored while one sits in Parliament, and then the citizens are to believe that the elected officials are credible in their utterances about their support for the elimination of corruption in our society.
-- Howard Gregory is the Suffran Bishop of Montego Bay
http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...ogance_7721098
Comment