Deacon Thwaites and Archbishop Emeritus, Samuel Carter.Avia Ustanny, freelance writer
IS IT possible to be a good Christian, a card carrying political party member and a journalist? The contradictions are rigid, diametrically opposed in instances and sometimes too much for even the most reasonable of minds to grasp.
But enter Ronald Thwaites attorney-at-law, ordained minister in the Catholic Church, farmer, talk show host and Member of Parliament for the Central Kingston constituency.
The contradictions have not escaped Deacon Thwaites. Although commanding much respect, bearing a noble Christian image, he was not to be left out of the melting pot of accusations and suspicions that often embroils local politics.
Mr. Thwaites' law firm, Daly, Thwaites, has been singed by the ongoing controversy over operation PRIDE. The four-member Commission which probed the National Housing Development Corporation (NHDC) scandal has called for an investigation of the dealings of his law firm with certain provident societies named by the commission.
In our interview today, Mr. Thwaites responds to the allegations.
Again and again he declares his commitment to fairplay and good conduct. He argues that having been involved in securing land contracts for the poor since the 1970s, the ensuing controversy is nothing new to him. Mr. Thwaites manages to move nimbly between the drops of political fallout and holds firmly that he will not be smeared by the brush of corruption which is sweeping so broadly through the political arena.
In 1997, Mr. Thwaites moved into politics when he became the People's National Party (PNP) MP for the volatile Central Kingston. This has been the toughest challenge of his career. In Parliament his articulate defence of those who are often not heard is standard. This week, we converse with the Deacon about politics, the question of poverty and how an avowed Christian keeps his feet in what the public perceives as the corruption-begrimed ground.
Outlook: What is the nature of your involvement with the National Housing Development Corporation?
Ronald Thwaites: Even before the creation of Operation PRIDE, the focus of my legal practice from the 1970s was to try to help the landless to gain titles for parcels of land on which they have built or wish to build their houses. I represented many of the people even before there was an Operation PRIDE. (Today) I represent a significant number of the schemes 15 out of 120. We do so on very set and specific arrangements with those we represented before PRIDE and now with the NHDC. I am pleased that we have brought many to success.
OL: What are your earnings from the PRIDE projects and which are the schemes that you represent?
RT: I am unable to answer that question. No lawyer discloses his fees and I cannot reveal who my clients are under attorney-client privelege.
OL: How do you respond to the recent report of the government-appointed commission on the operations of the NHDC which implicates your law firm in conduct which was less than above board?
RT: The recent report was very unfortunate because in writing the report no one got in touch to ask for an explanation of anything they might have thought was untoward. The chairman of the NHDC who was called before the Commission has affirmed that he was never asked about us. Additionally, we could never have been fired by the NHDC as we have never been employed to them. We are representatives of the provident society.
There has been no double invoicing and I regret not having been given the opportunity to appear before the Commission. I am continuing to work and hope that in the midst of all that is to be corrected we do not lose focus of the historic attempt to provide land for the landless which the Operation PRIDE project is all about.
OL: How do you balance politics and religion, especially in a country where politics is seen as immoral and some churches shy away from it?
RT: I came into politics as an act of religious ministry. I do not think that there are two kingdoms one of God and the other of the world. Jesus I read of his life where he involved himself in every aspect of human need. I do not think politics is immoral. It is one of the highest callings. Christ (was not political), not because he spurned their concerns, but because he pointed to a deeper truth a real political philosophy which comes from interior conversion. His Apostle St. James said it clearly; he said 'Faith without works is dead'. (Still), it's not the only way you will find or feel the application of this Christian belief, but it frequently takes one into the political arena. We have the example of Sam Sharpe, Gordon....
OL: Should more of today's religious leaders follow your example?
RT: The church leaders who are calling on politics and society to come to grips with themselves, to grapple with principles and to cut out divisions are on a right path. The means by which they seek to achieve this may be futile, but the principle is correct, they are what the nation needs. They may have shunned active involvement because they come from different religious traditions. Some (churches) seek a distancing from Babylon. Others have a deep history of social involvement. The tradition from which I come is one of activism and insertion.
OL: What were your specific objectives in entering representational politics in 1997, and have any of these been realised?
RT: In 1997 when I came to Central Kingston, the area, as is well known has a long history of deep and tragic political divisions. It is one of my cherished hopes to be able to break that down by personal example and by fairness of approach and eventually community responsibility. I have been working hard at that. I also hope to make significant insertions to improve people's physical surroundings and again that has been a great challenge.
The chronic war in the constituency is a thing of the past and hundreds of people have been set up in small businesses. A number of houses have been built and given to persons in desperate need. I hope no one who has needed help with education can point and say that they have been refused.
OL: How has the Roman Catholic Church seen your activities in the PNP?
RT: The church has largely been very kind and very supportive. Occasionally there are objections and more occasionally there are criticisms, but they are usually helpful. I am an ordained minister of the Roman Catholic Church. I am attached to the parish of Sts. Peter and Paul. I preached at two masses this morning. I went back and did a baptism at midday. I have a variety of other involvements including meetings, as well as care of the sick. The church is generous in understanding the many other calls I have and maybe my load is less.
OL: What are the most negative aspects of your representational role in politics?
RT: The complete lack of privacy. All your business is in the public domain, yours, your wife and your children. Another negative if you are serious about the job, it is a complete preoccupation. You will be unable to make ends meet. I do not know any politician who is not in this position.
No one believes this, of course. Most people believe that once you are in politics you are getting the bag. Politics is not fame or fortune. If you do it right, it is sacrificial work. I have to practise law in order to fulfil my obligations. I have to wake up early mornings and be a journalist not really for the pleasure of it. I am in good health, thank God. I have the greatest blessing in being married to the same lady for the last 30 years. She is quite supportive.
OL: How would you address the perception of deep corruption in the record of Jamaican politics?
RT: The perception of corruption is largely held by those who never try to engage and try to change (the system). They just stay a pass and throw words. This is not to deny that there are problems. We get the perception by the instances where it is regrettably happening, but then we generalise. Many of us in the media are geniuses at taking rumours and making them into established facts. There is a problem that exists in the society that is much wider than politics. I do not know of an area of human existence where this is not an issue. What I am not prepared to do is to declare that the state of politics in Jamaica is irredeemable and corrupt.
OL: How does the pursuit of politics and hosting talk shows, which in some places are viewed as journalism, mix?
RT: Between politics and journalism, there is some overlap, yes. I am not a split personality. When I am on the radio, I am who I am in all of its fullness. (But) I am open about my political involvement and I try very hard to be balanced in my comments and to be fair in allowing others to express theirs. When you go into politics, you do not leave your integrity at the door.
OL: What does integrity mean to you?
RT: Integrity is whatever set of principles you ascribe to. I am trying to be a Christian. I have my faults and I have done many things which I am ashamed of. But, the Christian philosophy is the world view that forms my foundation. I know many who have integrity in politics.
OL: When did your commitment to advocacy begin?
RT: I grew up in the ferment of the 1960s and it became (that) a useful way of spending one's life was in trying to improve conditions for those who are in need. That has taken form in both a religious and political set of principles. Advocacy for me is nothing new. I began my legal work by setting up the Legal Aid Clinic. In the mid-70s I was active in providing representation for those who needed land contracts. I later spent a great deal of time in giving sugar workers a greater share of ownership and gain through the sugar co-operatives. This was not successful, but I still treasure the effort. I have failed at many things, you know.
The reason why I have spent a lot of legal energy to help people to secure land is the same principle. Unless people are more empowered, how will we help them to be independent and strengthen themselves?
It is the same issue with education. Quality (is needed). So many members of my constituency put out a most heroic effort to ensure that their children get more than they have. I never want them to be disappointed.
OL: Would you say that the media has largely neglected its role as an advocate and avoided active engagement in the process of social change?
RT: There are so many areas of community life and national life that we do not bother to touch. We avoid appreciating what a tremendous teaching device the media is, and not only for entertainment. It is also extremely persuasive.
OL: Who is on the side of the poor?
RT: The whole of our society, I do not think, is geared or structured to provide opportunities for most of the people I represent -- to meet their basic needs. The resources have not been made available to do all that should be done. Also, the personal attitudes of many people in the area need considerable revision. Some have no intention of doing anything for themselves. I have no objection to persons in need asking for help if their position is one of effective despair.
The poor are those who do not have the opportunity of a good family life and those who after a formal education cannot command English or do not have adequate computing skills. The poor are those who have too little or too many resources. I know people who are rolling in cash, but they are really poverty stricken. Money cannot buy everything you need. But, the majority of the poor are those who cannot find a job or something useful to do. In my constituency, unemployment is three times the national average. We help where we can, but you see women becoming compromised. It's a terrible, terrible poverty.
We are running a severe social deficit in the country now. So many of the children are being parented by children and others feel that this is okay.
OL: What social systems need to be in place to change the levels of poverty which we currently experience?
RT: I should have brought my Bible and read from the Acts of the Apostles. The early church had everything in common. They shared everything. Yes, the resources of the country need to be more equally divided. Sharing is not charity, it is justice. The inequitable distribution of wealth is a fundamental problem. It is the prevailing orthodoxy in the world. But, how can we pull ourselves up by our bootstraps when we have no shoes? We need to turn towards far reaching change, to turn our backs against much of the political confrontation that we engage in so often. I am a member of the PNP, but I do not believe that we have a monopoly on good ideas. I do not believe that I am an enemy of people who are of a different political persuasion. We will have to find common cause: witness the debt, crime and violence and the social deficit.
I applaud what government has been doing with respect to education. They have made a huge investment. There is a place in school for every child in my constituency. What is disturbing is that after eight years of formal education that we have paid for sacrificially, many of the young people cannot function. We have to look and see what is behind that.
