C. Roy ReynoldsAMID THE maelstrom of hubris that daily swirls around us there occurred on Friday, October 27, two events that have elicited little comment so far because I suspect they are so different from the daily diet that we know not what to make of them.
I refer to a proposal of Opposition Senator Ossie Harding in the Senate and to the profound apology offered by a gentleman who had fed television viewers a false story a few nights before. Mr. Harding's call for rapprochement between Government and Opposition on the Caribbean Court issue is perhaps the freshest breath of breeze that has blown through the foetid halls of national politics for a long time.
Not since the days of men like Donald Sangster and Ken Jones can I remember such an approach by the two major parties. The cynic is bound to question Mr. Harding's sincerity having been schooled for so long in the ways of the two warring tribes. But regardless of the motive the promise is too good to let slip and the country should now rise up and demand that it be pursued.
Of course, there will be speculation as to what motivated Mr. Harding and speculation as to whether his assertion that it was only a personal position is accurate. After all Mr. Harding has been in politics too long and is too astute a man to make a purely personal gesture to which his party is opposed. So we are at liberty to infer that he is flying a kite on behalf of his party. Perhaps an indication of a shift in policy or even a shift in leadership. Or it could be merely the verbal musing of a man whose consciousness has been awakened by the futility of our adversarial politics.
Whatever the motivation it is a ray of hope long denied the people of this country. I would like to take time to remind the warring politicians of the fable about the quarrel between the sun and the wind as to who was the more powerful. They agreed to test their prowess by who could make a man shed his coat. The breeze blew gently then with increasing violence with the result that the man clutched his coat tighter and tighter.
Then it was the sun's turn to gently warm him with the result that he soon took his coat off. For decades now all our politicians have done is to huff and puff at each other. And the only house they have succeeded in blowing down is our own.
I have no doubt that if they took Mr. Harding's lead their stock among the vast majority of the Jamaican people would rise considerably. Some might wonder, as the Americans say: "how will it play in Peoria." I am confident that it would play well all over the island.
The Government should realise that it is not the fount of all wisdom and the Opposition should realise that its attitude of staying on the sidelines salivating over our misfortunes and waiting for total collapse to precipitate its comeback is a silly and unrewarding stance. After all if you laugh afta dawg distress, dawg has no reason to trust you.
Mr. Harding's proposition is timely for another reason. Given the reality of how the majority of people in this country feel about the capital punishment issue and the action of the British Law Lords in the matter putting the Caribbean Court proposition to a referendum with the JLP defending the Law Lords is a loser for that party. I doubt if it could retain even all of its hard core support for this one! So Mr. Harding is offering a way out for both parties and if his party can be perceived as leading this enlightenment it would have done more to bolster its standing than all the scandals and quarrels it had fostered in many years.
And now to that contrite sobering performance by that erstwhile television star. This is not only the story of one man repenting the errors of his way. Even moreso it is a rebuke for our latter-day so-called journalists who when it comes to certain situations are as naive as babes in the woods.
It has long worried me that our reporters these days swallow every tale told especially if it puts the police and certain other groups in this country on the spot. Unverified and unverfiable accounts are daily and nightly presented without even a mild disclaimer however damaging they might be to the reputation of individuals or groups. The tragedy is that they appear not to attract the attention of editors. Well do I remember the days when one-sided stories were handed back to the reporter to complete it or spike it!
It seems that these days reporters no longer ask pertinent questions. I remember for instance a television expose in which the cameras were taken into a Spanish Town community to show the failure of the Water Commission and other agencies to clear drains. There in the picture was the evidence that the people had thrown everything, including the kitchen sink into the drains and the cowardly reporter did not even have the gall to ask: "Den weh onno throw all dem tings eena unno drain?"
Maybe now that one reformed citizen has made a monkey out of the cameras and the robots that operate them they will be a little more economical with their air time. They must now seriously wonder how many other times they had been taken by dishonest mobs. It should be a sobering lesson!
C. Roy Reynolds is a freelance journalist.
