Tweet
Will history destroy or endorse Bruce Golding?
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, November 03, 2011
In the various spins on history, it is not unknown that pirates and cut-throats have been elevated by their peers in high places to the ranks of heroes and saviours, while many of those who have empowered the common man or found reason to spend a lifetime actively condemning and fighting against his wretched state have melted away in the mist of time.
A few months ago, as US President Barack Obama fought his political detractors in the US Senate and Congress in an effort to raise the debt ceiling and world markets reacted to the political circus with more than jitters, I was certain that due to his inability to launch a political war on the domestic front burner, he was on target for one term only and that history would be unkind to him.
Notwithstanding his foreign policy successes, that is, his ability to direct the press-button theatre of death and destruction on political leaders not to his and the US' liking, and far removed from the arena of his domestic politics, the poor slate of Republican candidates lined up to face off against him is beginning to make him look good to those who would want to write his unfavourable history today.
It seems like only yesterday that many political pundits had begun the process of scripting a long and low poetic dirge in celebration of the JLP's one-term only funeral procession. The historians were already drafting the first chapters in newspapers and Bruce Golding was certain to be consigned to a cold, desolate and even hated place in those first chapters.
Now, it seems, at the very least, some early conclusions must be halted and more questions need to be asked. How, some are saying, did Golding arrange for the best political move of his political career (read, Andrew Holness) at his career's end?
More important, I would like to revisit the Dudus extradition/ Manatt engagement to ask some questions, in the hope that the historians would probe much further.
What really caused the extradition delay?
As political tempers flared in the early to mid part of last year, I had many discussions with a very senior member of the JLP Cabinet.
He had seen my harsh condemnation at what I saw as Golding's indecisiveness and I suspected he wanted to tell me the truth without giving away too much. The fact is, all power relationships, especially the kind that operates between the governors and the governed, have secrecy as an integral part of what keeps the governors in their positions of power. To the people, much is doled out, but many times the information that is distributed to the people is a poor representation of what constitutes truth.
Why is that so? The fact is, the nature of governments is not entirely what would be palatable to a voting public, if that public became fully aware of the hidden alliances. As I stated before in previous articles, poles of power tend to seek out other poles of power for the total survival of power per se.
In this scenario, big business would seek out politicians, big drug dealers would seek out politicians, all would seek out each other and often the lines between "businessman" and drug dealer may be blurred. In time, a crude but workable alliance is set up and that is the face that politicians desire to be kept secret from the voting public.
As I sat in the senior politician's living room, he said to me, "You have always said that before you make a judgement on a man, a politician or a situation, you must first figuratively immerse yourself in it to make a reasonable judgement. Am I right?"
"Yes," I said. "But that would not hinder me from making a harsh judgement.
I would walk in the man's shoes only to get a feel as to how he arrived at his position."
"Fair enough," he said.
He stared at me as his furrowed brows indicated more than age. "What if you were the prime minister and this extradition came in. The Americans would only be concerned about our domestic security problems to the extent that it had any spillover effects on their polity..."
"Oh, you mean the Monroe Doctrine," I said. He indicated understanding.
"Now, imagine further that you as prime minister have been threatened, your wife has been threatened, but more important, a "certain man" says that all he has to do is make three telephone calls and Montego Bay is set afire, downtown Kingston is torched and the Kingston uptown business district is made unviable, what would you do?"
I pondered his question then asked, "Are you saying that all of that took place?"
"You are not answering me. What would you have done, as prime minister?"
I figured that he was trying to mount an argument to explain the extradition delays. "I would immediately tell the nation, institute a national state of emergency and go for the man," I said.
"Not that easy. You have to weigh the options and the first one is not running the risk of destabilising the economy and having major loss of lives all across Jamaica. The only reasonable option available to you is to play with the mind of the "man" and convince him that you will be doing everything in your power to assist him. You know that he must go, but you simply cannot sign immediately and have a major national conflagration on your hands. So you make excuses because you cannot tell the full truth to a public that you are sworn to protect."
Is it at all possible that Golding went for the better option? He stalled to buy time, to plan, to avert what could have turned out to be worse than 73-plus lives lost? Is that at all possible?
"Would the prime minister answer my questions if I asked him those directly?" I asked him.
"Not likely," he said. To do so would be to turn over all that has been filtered down to the public. I know you will never be prepared to believe that Golding weighed the options and he thought through the process. You will never believe that he did what he thought was best for the country."
The senior minister has maintained that the real story, told years from now, will exonerate Golding but that sometimes one man needs to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good in the here-and-now.
What do you think?
observemark@gmail.com
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1ceXj4l78
MARK WIGNALL
Thursday, November 03, 2011
In the various spins on history, it is not unknown that pirates and cut-throats have been elevated by their peers in high places to the ranks of heroes and saviours, while many of those who have empowered the common man or found reason to spend a lifetime actively condemning and fighting against his wretched state have melted away in the mist of time.
A few months ago, as US President Barack Obama fought his political detractors in the US Senate and Congress in an effort to raise the debt ceiling and world markets reacted to the political circus with more than jitters, I was certain that due to his inability to launch a political war on the domestic front burner, he was on target for one term only and that history would be unkind to him.
Notwithstanding his foreign policy successes, that is, his ability to direct the press-button theatre of death and destruction on political leaders not to his and the US' liking, and far removed from the arena of his domestic politics, the poor slate of Republican candidates lined up to face off against him is beginning to make him look good to those who would want to write his unfavourable history today.
It seems like only yesterday that many political pundits had begun the process of scripting a long and low poetic dirge in celebration of the JLP's one-term only funeral procession. The historians were already drafting the first chapters in newspapers and Bruce Golding was certain to be consigned to a cold, desolate and even hated place in those first chapters.
Now, it seems, at the very least, some early conclusions must be halted and more questions need to be asked. How, some are saying, did Golding arrange for the best political move of his political career (read, Andrew Holness) at his career's end?
More important, I would like to revisit the Dudus extradition/ Manatt engagement to ask some questions, in the hope that the historians would probe much further.
What really caused the extradition delay?
As political tempers flared in the early to mid part of last year, I had many discussions with a very senior member of the JLP Cabinet.
He had seen my harsh condemnation at what I saw as Golding's indecisiveness and I suspected he wanted to tell me the truth without giving away too much. The fact is, all power relationships, especially the kind that operates between the governors and the governed, have secrecy as an integral part of what keeps the governors in their positions of power. To the people, much is doled out, but many times the information that is distributed to the people is a poor representation of what constitutes truth.
Why is that so? The fact is, the nature of governments is not entirely what would be palatable to a voting public, if that public became fully aware of the hidden alliances. As I stated before in previous articles, poles of power tend to seek out other poles of power for the total survival of power per se.
In this scenario, big business would seek out politicians, big drug dealers would seek out politicians, all would seek out each other and often the lines between "businessman" and drug dealer may be blurred. In time, a crude but workable alliance is set up and that is the face that politicians desire to be kept secret from the voting public.
As I sat in the senior politician's living room, he said to me, "You have always said that before you make a judgement on a man, a politician or a situation, you must first figuratively immerse yourself in it to make a reasonable judgement. Am I right?"
"Yes," I said. "But that would not hinder me from making a harsh judgement.
I would walk in the man's shoes only to get a feel as to how he arrived at his position."
"Fair enough," he said.
He stared at me as his furrowed brows indicated more than age. "What if you were the prime minister and this extradition came in. The Americans would only be concerned about our domestic security problems to the extent that it had any spillover effects on their polity..."
"Oh, you mean the Monroe Doctrine," I said. He indicated understanding.
"Now, imagine further that you as prime minister have been threatened, your wife has been threatened, but more important, a "certain man" says that all he has to do is make three telephone calls and Montego Bay is set afire, downtown Kingston is torched and the Kingston uptown business district is made unviable, what would you do?"
I pondered his question then asked, "Are you saying that all of that took place?"
"You are not answering me. What would you have done, as prime minister?"
I figured that he was trying to mount an argument to explain the extradition delays. "I would immediately tell the nation, institute a national state of emergency and go for the man," I said.
"Not that easy. You have to weigh the options and the first one is not running the risk of destabilising the economy and having major loss of lives all across Jamaica. The only reasonable option available to you is to play with the mind of the "man" and convince him that you will be doing everything in your power to assist him. You know that he must go, but you simply cannot sign immediately and have a major national conflagration on your hands. So you make excuses because you cannot tell the full truth to a public that you are sworn to protect."
Is it at all possible that Golding went for the better option? He stalled to buy time, to plan, to avert what could have turned out to be worse than 73-plus lives lost? Is that at all possible?
"Would the prime minister answer my questions if I asked him those directly?" I asked him.
"Not likely," he said. To do so would be to turn over all that has been filtered down to the public. I know you will never be prepared to believe that Golding weighed the options and he thought through the process. You will never believe that he did what he thought was best for the country."
The senior minister has maintained that the real story, told years from now, will exonerate Golding but that sometimes one man needs to make a personal sacrifice for the greater good in the here-and-now.
What do you think?
observemark@gmail.com
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1ceXj4l78
Comment