Stephen VasciannieLAST THURSDAY, the Department of Management Studies and the Mona School of Business, at the University of the West Indies organised an excellent seminar under the rubric "Ethics, Political Governance and the Business Environ-ment." The guest speakers were Minister Dr. Peter Phillips and Opposition Member of Parliament Delroy Chuck, while Professor Alvin Wint, Head of the Department of Management Studies also made a major presentation.
Professor Wint's presentation concentrated primarily on ethics in the corporate context, though he emphasised that many of the requirements of corporate ethics -- such as the need for transparency, equality of opportunity and accountability -- are equally applicable in the public and private sectors. Given Professor Wint's status in the academy, and the incisiveness that he carries to his work, it is superfluous for me to indicate that his presentation was thought-provoking and well-received.
Minister Phillips approached the topic from a political scientist's perspective, concentrating on the challenges to the State prompted by prevalent forms of criminality and pointing to possible ways of addressing these challenges. And, Mr Chuck offered an alternative vision of the role of the State in economic development, prompted in large part (but not exclusively) by his reading of Lee Kwan Yew's magnum opus, From Third World to First: The Singapore Story.
ETHICAL MOBILISATION
Both Phillips and Chuck -- themselves former leading members of the academy -- made stimulating presentations; in the nature of things, though, I found that Dr. Phillips was considerably less partisan in his main offering than was Mr Chuck. Indeed, Dr Phillips' main thesis, i.e., that we should work towards the "ethical mobilisation" of the Jamaican society, bearing in mind "widely shared ideals," is worthy of wider dissemination and further analysis.
The ethical mobilisation of the society is a worthy ideal, and, in fact, it could be perceived as another form of the 'values and attitudes' campaign that the Prime Minister launched some years ago. One problem, however, is how we may, as a society, work to implement this ethical mobilisation. If we start from the assumption that one of the primary purposes of socialisation is the transmission of values, then the driving forces of ethical mobilisation should probably rest with the home, school and the church.
But, as is painfully obvious, the transmission of ethical values through the traditional means of socialisation has not yielded positive results throughout the Jamaican society. Among other things, the high level of crime and violence, coarseness in the public square, and the prevalence of corruption in both the public and private sectors point to a breakdown in standards across the board.
And so, the questions arise: how may traditional forms of socialisation be strengthened in the face of strong resistance, and who should lead the ethical mobilisation that is clearly required? On the basis of his presentation, I believe Dr Phillips would argue that we should all make a contribution in this area, so that, for instance, people who are disinclined to give reports to the police should see the error in their ways, and the state should be given the authority to investigate persons who appear to live above their means.
THAT FUNERAL AGAIN
But, if we accept this line of analysis, we will also have the right to criticise political leaders when their actions, though legal, fall short of ethical standards. And, it was on this point that I found myself wondering whether Dr Phillips had fully worked out the dimensions of his scheme for ethical mobilisation. With this in mind, I asked both Dr Phillips and Mr Chuck about the matter of political leaders attending the funerals of persons who were perceived by many as being "ethically challenged".
In response, Dr Phillips: (a) emphasised that this is a matter that he has had to address before (he mentioned that fact twice, or perhaps three times), (b) noted that when he attended the funeral that prompted my question he was the Minister of Transport (not the Minister of National Security), (c) pointed out that even now, as Minister of National Security, he had not received evidence to the effect that the deceased was involved in criminal activities, (d) indicated that the critics of the deceased faced their own ethical challenges because they had opted not to criticise the deceased until his demise, and (e) mentioned that, as a political leader, he has had to attend funerals of all sorts of people, many of whom had moral imperfections (including "philanderers" and adulterers); we should be careful not to condemn funeral attendance on a class basis.
Dr. Phillips then noted that, having discussed the matter of his attendance at the funeral with students from Ardenne High School, he has come to realise the symbolism involved in attending that funeral. The symbolism point is critical: if the deceased is widely perceived to have criminal associations, and is so perceived even among school children, then the political leader - if (s)he wishes to be a part of the ethical mobilisation of society -- must stay away from funerals at which their presence will be regarded as condoning particular forms of rascality. I might note, in passing too, that the points (a) to (e) above are quite weak in themselves, and certainly pale into insignificance when placed against the symbolism point.
Mr Chuck also appears now to realise this; for, in his response to the funeral question, he indicated some degree of regret for writing a funeral tribute for a man widely perceived to be an area don. According to Mr Chuck, his espistolary efforts on that occasion were prompted in part by the desire to mollify some youths in the area who were swearing revenge in the name of their dearly departed leader. There is truth in this, but, at the same time, if we write tributes for dons, we are condoning the way they live their lives, and we are driving a nail into the coffin that some say we have already built for ethics in the society. Both Phillips and Chuck should acknowledge this. Most people know they feel obliged to pay homage because they believe it will help them to retain "street credibility"; but they have paid a high ethical price for this approach.
In the end, a democracy will not survive if its leaders believe that ethical values are to be respected in some circumstances, but not in others. In the public sphere, there are clearly defined ethical responses to most questions. Whenever our political leaders drift from those responses, they set the stage for further breakdown in the wider society.
Stephen Vasciannie is Professor of International Law at the Mona Campus of the University of the West Indies.
