SeagaIan Boyne, Contributor
The tragedy of the absence of Bruce Golding from the political landscape was again highlighted recently when he spoke at the G2K function on corruption. His masterly, commanding and even thought-provoking presentation rose above the parochialism and partisanship which have so far characterised the discourse.
You can always depend on Bruce Golding to think outside the narrow Jamaican political box and push away the petty political envelope. He was in top form last week. His most important suggestion was not the one having to do with empowering the Public Accounts Committee. Even the normally astute newsman Cliff Hughes dropped the ball on this one in his interview with Golding the following day. Strengthening the PAC has to do with working within the confines of the Westminster Parliamentary system, but Golding's profound question to the JLP and by extension to the PNP is how could the system to which it was committed ideologically effectively deal with corruption. The media missed this crucial point.
Golding made the profound point that combating corruption was not just a matter of electing good men. Electing good men and women to work with bad systems cannot contain the corruption of bad unelected officials, and it leaves the door wide open for possible succeeding bad representatives to take advantage of the loopholes.
All about the issues
Golding has again deftly and sensitively (constrained by courtesy to his hosts) put on the table the whole issue of constitutional reform and the suitability of our system of Government to deal with some of our particular challenges to good governance. Giving the usual rejoinder of how well the Westminster system works in other countries does not address the problem with out practice and peculiar political culture.
More far-reaching than Golding's suggestions about restructuring the PAC was his view that impeachment should be left to an independent group of persons or else we run the risk of the political abuse of this process. Overall, what was outstanding about Bruce Golding's recommendations was that they concerned systemic changes and were not dependent on electing a particular group of men (yes, men). This does not favour the JLP's propaganda line, which is that there is something about the PNP men which is inherently corrupt. The JLP's anti-corruption campaign is to convince Jamaicans that P.J. Patterson and his Cabinet and party are corrupt to the core, unreformable - almost having corruption in their blood; so if we want to be rid of corruption, we have to be rid of them.
This kind of propaganda appeals to many simplistic people, but there is a group - I believe substantial - of independent, rational non-partisan persons for whom that line is absurd. In fact, the average man on the street believes that all politicians are by nature power-hungry and corrupt. On the street, the average person will tell you that his problem with the PNP is not just that in his opinion they are corrupt. It is that "dem thief everything fi themself and dem fren." If as a political party you steal and leave something for the people, they will tolerate you. The problem they feel is that the PNP is too greedy. This is the level of cynicism that exists in the country.
So this anti-corruption campaign is not likely to fool many people. The PNP's response to the JLP's campaign has also been entirely unsatisfactory. The party's response to the JLP is essentially that you have no moral authority to utter the word "corruption". You forget about Spring Plains, you forget that one of your ministers (J.A.G. Smith) went to prison, you forget about this, you forget about that. The PNP's response does demonstrate that that party would not have the corner on corruption, but to leave the issue at that is to further strengthen the position of the majority of the uncommitted electorate that the two major parties are just a variation of the same theme of poor governance and corruption.
It is not enough to show that the JLP has its own record of corruption and that Mr. Seaga's house is not in order. Mr. Seaga's personal business affairs are relevant to the campaign. His character is relevant and so is the character of every politician, including Mr. Patterson's. But to show that everyone has skeletons in his closet is not to advance the discussion on corruption or to chart a course for the nation to emerge from the morass in which it finds itself morally.
Civil society and the church, in particular, should enter the corruption debate in a most vigorous way, and marginalise the two big boys (the parties) to their mud-slinging contest. Golding has set the standard by coming out with a set of ideas and constructs which we can meaningfully put our teeth into. The political parties will be forced to deal with the issue of corruption seriously when we, as independent media commentators, business leaders, professional groups, church leaders, social activists and NGOs set the agenda. For too long we have left it to the parties to set the agenda.
Progressive debate
This is an excellent opportunity to broaden the corruption debate and bring to the table some critical issues which are overdue for discussion. For example, the role of values and social norms in providing the foundation of an economically healthy and humane society. This is an opportunity for progressive thinkers who have a holistic philosophy of development to enter the debate on corruption and rescue it from the philistines. In fairness to Opposition Leader Edward Seaga, he did say in the first forum on corruption hosted by G2K (which deserves the highest commendation for lifting the bar of political discourse): "In the longer term corruption has to be weeded out of the psyche of the Jamaican people by a character education programme which is included in the education curriculum. Values of honesty must be taught from the early years of life." And he did propose at the last JLP Annual Conference that character education be included in the education curriculum and spoke eloquently on the issue.
The PNP has also spoken of the importance of values and attitudes. What civil society must do is to force the parties to abandon the silly, vulgar and facile approach to the corruption issue. No one is saying we must talk philosophy "while the Government corruptly wastes millions". No one should try to divert Audley Shaw from his mission as Scandal Czar, once he has his facts and evidence. But to suggest that because the PNP is "incorrigibly corrupt" the JLP must be better, is absurd.
We would have to be convinced the that the policy platform and approach to governance is so fundamentally different that the JLP would make a better alternative. Debate that.
And the PNP must defend itself against the specific charges of corruption. Remind us, yes, that the critics also have feet of clay, but show us why we should stick with you and why you are a better option than the JLP. Saying in effect, "The whole a we a thief" does not help the thinking voter and there are many of those.
Many flinch from discussing issues philosophically. We have an anti-intellectual tradition in this country, especially in politics. It was exemplified by JLP founder Alexander Bustamante who said "Philosophy caan plant yam"!
My hope is that in this century we can move away from that idiocy. The framers of the American Constitution were heavily influenced by philosophical, indeed religious, notions. The principle of the separation of powers came out of the Christian view of human nature as inclined to evil, sin and the abuse of power. Man was not inherently good and noble. Because he was not inherently good and had a tendency to sin, he could not be trusted with power. So there must be systems and institutions to protect other men from the abuse of that power. Western democratic principles and systems have survived communist totalitarianism because they were based on conservative Christian anthropology (view of human nature) and more realistic than Marx's utopian view that man is inherently good, noble and is only corrupted by class interests. Electing people of integrity is good, critical, but is not enough. There must be the institutional, systemic framework to deal with the tendency to abuse power. Even good men are tempted to do wrong and there must be proper sanctions to discourage or punish that. Mr. Seaga is right in endorsing the quote which says, "Neither the wisest constitution nor the wisest plans will secure the liberty and happiness of people whose leaders are corrupt." Sure.
But we need the constitutional arrangements and the systemic changes to deal with those leaders when they are corrupt. And it is those issues that Bruce Golding, now out of the political hustling, has put so ably and so convincingly on the table. The political parties would do well to follow him.
Ian Boyne is a minister in the Church of God International and a veteran journalist.
