Tweet
Quibbling over 'the bigger half'
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1evfYwdS4
MOST of us would recall those moments from childhood when we were very competitive with our siblings, and our parents' attempts to mediate and to be as unbiased as possible, even as we quibbled over who got "the bigger half of the orange" or other perceived goodies.
It did not matter if the particular goodie came already divided in halves, the competitive factor was so much in play that each thing had to be subjected to "the bigger half" examination. Which parent could appeal to logic or mathematical principle in such situations and convince the children involved that there is no such thing as a bigger or smaller half?
MUNROE… has been consistently pushing the political leadership of the nation to take all necessary steps to bring an end to corruption in governance, and to make liable for prosecution persons who breach these provisions.
Why should it be necessary for our already overwhelmed court system to be further overburdened with a lawsuit brought by Opposition candidate Peter Bunting (left) against governing party candidate Audley Shaw (right)?
Taken to another level, there was the question of which child was the recipient of more love from one particular parent or both. Those profuse assurances that each child was loved equally did not seem to sit well with contentious and competitive children.
Happily, we can dismiss these things as a childish or childhood preoccupation which frequently subsides with ageing and maturity. What happens, though, when this becomes the preoccupation of grown-ups who are given to taking serious adult matters and turning them into child's play?
Here I must speak of the matter of corruption and other violations in the area of governance, and the way in which these very serious issues are handled by the offending parties when their activities come to public light. This has been a feature of our national politics and is now being played out once more as the election campaign heats up.
In recent days we have heard the youth arm of the Jamaica Labour Party calling for an individual who has a case to answer before the court to be dropped from the Opposition's line-up of candidates. The argument is made out with an appeal to strong moral and emotional foundations and which are intended to convince the leader of the Opposition, and the nation as a whole, that this is the appropriate course of action to follow.
I have no need to quibble over the veracity of their statement but would want to start at another point. Those who seek political office and leadership should be persons whose moral character can stand up to public scrutiny, and not only be an example to the nation, but be persons who can represent to the world who we perceive ourselves to be in terms of our moral tone and quality of leadership.
In this regard, both political parties need to look with more focused lenses at the candidates who are being placed on the ballots and whether they represent the best of moral and political leadership which they have to offer. It cannot be that both sides continue to engage in mutual recrimination as to whose candidates constitute "the better half". Why should it be necessary for our already overwhelmed court system to be further overburdened with a lawsuit brought by the Opposition candidate Peter Bunting, against governing party candidate Audley Shaw?
It is in this light also that I would place the matter of the time wasted in the courts with suits and counter-suits concerning dual citizenship by members of parliament. It was clear from the outset that both sides of the political divide had put up candidates whom the Constitution in its current form prohibits from holding office in Parliament. The way in which it is surfacing in some aspects of the election campaign cannot be deemed to have any serious weight and credibility, as it is a game which both have played at the expense of the nation.
The two current major issues which are occupying public attention, namely, the Trafigura Affair and the Auditor General's Report concerning the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme, are taking on a similar twist. The expressions of moral outrage in relation to the latter, and potent powers of recall concerning the nefarious nature of the former by spokespersons of either political party are nothing short of quibbling as to whose misdemeanour constitutes the greater or lesser offence.
Dr Trevor Munroe, who was once a political candidate, has, through his leadership of the National Integrity Action Forum, been consistently pushing the political leadership of the nation to take all necessary steps to bring an end to corruption in governance, and to make liable for prosecution persons who breach these provisions. The contractor general, Mr Greg Christie, has been made out to be a villain because of his investigation of allegations of corruption and his frequent vocal calls for legislative changes to close current loopholes, and to prosecute those in governance and those holding public office who are found to be involved in corrupt activities.
There was a significant development during this past week which I believe has something to teach us and perhaps point to the way forward in dealing with corruption in governance and the public service. Jamaican sprinter Steve Mullings' drug violation case was the subject of a ruling by a three-member panel of the Jamaica Anti-Doping disciplinary panel. This very promising 28-year-old athlete had his career brought to a premature end by being banned for life from sports.
For those looking on, it appears to be a severe sanction and certainly a tragedy for this young man. While it appears that he still has an opportunity for appeal to a higher jurisdiction, the panel felt that their ruling is intended to send a strong signal to all involved in sports that such violations will not be tolerated.
We all know that success in sports is one of the most lucrative options available to many athletes at the local and international levels, and on this basis one could understand why the sanction should be as severe as it seems. It appears, however, that sports is about much more than that, and the ruling is probably pointing to this reality.
Sports is about personal development of one's body, personality, and character, even as it is intended to teach certain social skills. That is one reason that sports usually involves team activities, teaching social skills even through the exercise of the competitive spirit. For a sportsperson to resort to the use of drugs to enhance achievement and to gain international recognition and reward is not only a personal violation, but an act of corruption which constitutes an offence against the social order.
It is not clear whether the ruling of the Jamaican authorities will be upheld by the higher sporting jurisdiction, but there are some clear signals which the action of the Jamaica Anti-Doping disciplinary panel hold for us in dealing with corruption in its seeming never-ending expression. First, it points us to the need to challenge purveyors of corruption who seem to think that their actions are simply a matter of persons' choices which they exercise, and so are often quick to claim that they have done nothing wrong or, to minimise the seriousness of their actions or failure to act.
What we have seen among political figures who have been involved in acts deemed to be corrupt is a kind of arrogance that wants to stare the public in the face, and almost dare the society to come and do something about it. Often this is played out in a context in which party functionaries have their party close ranks around them, while engaging in similar acts of denial.
This brings us to the issue of social responsibility, as these individuals fail to understand that, notwithstanding whatever competencies and skills they may possess, they have been able to act in the way that has caused offence because they occupy public office. Therefore, like the sportsperson, they have a constituency beyond self to which they are accountable, and when convicted should be subject to legal sanction.
This has continued to be the weak link in the chain for us as Jamaicans in dealing with corruption, and those in governance in recent decades must bear much of the responsibility for this ongoing situation.
Perhaps the final thing to note in the ruling of the anti-doping disciplinary panel is their concern that a strong signal be sent to the members of the sporting fraternity that drug violations constitute a corruption of the foundation of sports and will not be tolerated. Currently the signals, if we may consider them so, within the Jamaican society in dealing with corruption are barely discernible and can be easily ignored.
The most that tends to happen is what we are seeing being played out before us, the "kids" quibbling" about who is holding "the bigger half". Without decisive action by those who will constitute the next government of Jamaica, we shall come back to the next general election in another four or so years with the kids quibbling once more and the country being no better for it.
Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1evfLdkNy
HOWARD GREGORY
Sunday, November 27, 2011
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1evfYwdS4
MOST of us would recall those moments from childhood when we were very competitive with our siblings, and our parents' attempts to mediate and to be as unbiased as possible, even as we quibbled over who got "the bigger half of the orange" or other perceived goodies.
It did not matter if the particular goodie came already divided in halves, the competitive factor was so much in play that each thing had to be subjected to "the bigger half" examination. Which parent could appeal to logic or mathematical principle in such situations and convince the children involved that there is no such thing as a bigger or smaller half?
MUNROE… has been consistently pushing the political leadership of the nation to take all necessary steps to bring an end to corruption in governance, and to make liable for prosecution persons who breach these provisions.
Why should it be necessary for our already overwhelmed court system to be further overburdened with a lawsuit brought by Opposition candidate Peter Bunting (left) against governing party candidate Audley Shaw (right)?
Taken to another level, there was the question of which child was the recipient of more love from one particular parent or both. Those profuse assurances that each child was loved equally did not seem to sit well with contentious and competitive children.
Happily, we can dismiss these things as a childish or childhood preoccupation which frequently subsides with ageing and maturity. What happens, though, when this becomes the preoccupation of grown-ups who are given to taking serious adult matters and turning them into child's play?
Here I must speak of the matter of corruption and other violations in the area of governance, and the way in which these very serious issues are handled by the offending parties when their activities come to public light. This has been a feature of our national politics and is now being played out once more as the election campaign heats up.
In recent days we have heard the youth arm of the Jamaica Labour Party calling for an individual who has a case to answer before the court to be dropped from the Opposition's line-up of candidates. The argument is made out with an appeal to strong moral and emotional foundations and which are intended to convince the leader of the Opposition, and the nation as a whole, that this is the appropriate course of action to follow.
I have no need to quibble over the veracity of their statement but would want to start at another point. Those who seek political office and leadership should be persons whose moral character can stand up to public scrutiny, and not only be an example to the nation, but be persons who can represent to the world who we perceive ourselves to be in terms of our moral tone and quality of leadership.
In this regard, both political parties need to look with more focused lenses at the candidates who are being placed on the ballots and whether they represent the best of moral and political leadership which they have to offer. It cannot be that both sides continue to engage in mutual recrimination as to whose candidates constitute "the better half". Why should it be necessary for our already overwhelmed court system to be further overburdened with a lawsuit brought by the Opposition candidate Peter Bunting, against governing party candidate Audley Shaw?
It is in this light also that I would place the matter of the time wasted in the courts with suits and counter-suits concerning dual citizenship by members of parliament. It was clear from the outset that both sides of the political divide had put up candidates whom the Constitution in its current form prohibits from holding office in Parliament. The way in which it is surfacing in some aspects of the election campaign cannot be deemed to have any serious weight and credibility, as it is a game which both have played at the expense of the nation.
The two current major issues which are occupying public attention, namely, the Trafigura Affair and the Auditor General's Report concerning the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme, are taking on a similar twist. The expressions of moral outrage in relation to the latter, and potent powers of recall concerning the nefarious nature of the former by spokespersons of either political party are nothing short of quibbling as to whose misdemeanour constitutes the greater or lesser offence.
Dr Trevor Munroe, who was once a political candidate, has, through his leadership of the National Integrity Action Forum, been consistently pushing the political leadership of the nation to take all necessary steps to bring an end to corruption in governance, and to make liable for prosecution persons who breach these provisions. The contractor general, Mr Greg Christie, has been made out to be a villain because of his investigation of allegations of corruption and his frequent vocal calls for legislative changes to close current loopholes, and to prosecute those in governance and those holding public office who are found to be involved in corrupt activities.
There was a significant development during this past week which I believe has something to teach us and perhaps point to the way forward in dealing with corruption in governance and the public service. Jamaican sprinter Steve Mullings' drug violation case was the subject of a ruling by a three-member panel of the Jamaica Anti-Doping disciplinary panel. This very promising 28-year-old athlete had his career brought to a premature end by being banned for life from sports.
For those looking on, it appears to be a severe sanction and certainly a tragedy for this young man. While it appears that he still has an opportunity for appeal to a higher jurisdiction, the panel felt that their ruling is intended to send a strong signal to all involved in sports that such violations will not be tolerated.
We all know that success in sports is one of the most lucrative options available to many athletes at the local and international levels, and on this basis one could understand why the sanction should be as severe as it seems. It appears, however, that sports is about much more than that, and the ruling is probably pointing to this reality.
Sports is about personal development of one's body, personality, and character, even as it is intended to teach certain social skills. That is one reason that sports usually involves team activities, teaching social skills even through the exercise of the competitive spirit. For a sportsperson to resort to the use of drugs to enhance achievement and to gain international recognition and reward is not only a personal violation, but an act of corruption which constitutes an offence against the social order.
It is not clear whether the ruling of the Jamaican authorities will be upheld by the higher sporting jurisdiction, but there are some clear signals which the action of the Jamaica Anti-Doping disciplinary panel hold for us in dealing with corruption in its seeming never-ending expression. First, it points us to the need to challenge purveyors of corruption who seem to think that their actions are simply a matter of persons' choices which they exercise, and so are often quick to claim that they have done nothing wrong or, to minimise the seriousness of their actions or failure to act.
What we have seen among political figures who have been involved in acts deemed to be corrupt is a kind of arrogance that wants to stare the public in the face, and almost dare the society to come and do something about it. Often this is played out in a context in which party functionaries have their party close ranks around them, while engaging in similar acts of denial.
This brings us to the issue of social responsibility, as these individuals fail to understand that, notwithstanding whatever competencies and skills they may possess, they have been able to act in the way that has caused offence because they occupy public office. Therefore, like the sportsperson, they have a constituency beyond self to which they are accountable, and when convicted should be subject to legal sanction.
This has continued to be the weak link in the chain for us as Jamaicans in dealing with corruption, and those in governance in recent decades must bear much of the responsibility for this ongoing situation.
Perhaps the final thing to note in the ruling of the anti-doping disciplinary panel is their concern that a strong signal be sent to the members of the sporting fraternity that drug violations constitute a corruption of the foundation of sports and will not be tolerated. Currently the signals, if we may consider them so, within the Jamaican society in dealing with corruption are barely discernible and can be easily ignored.
The most that tends to happen is what we are seeing being played out before us, the "kids" quibbling" about who is holding "the bigger half". Without decisive action by those who will constitute the next government of Jamaica, we shall come back to the next general election in another four or so years with the kids quibbling once more and the country being no better for it.
Howard Gregory is the Suffragan Bishop of Montego Bay
Read more: http://www.jamaicaobserver.com/colum...#ixzz1evfLdkNy