By Vernon Daley, Parliamentary Reporter
OCCASIONALLY OUR honourable leaders remind us how hypocritical they really are. During last Tuesday's sitting of the House, hypocrisy was so thick in the air, you could almost smell the awful stench from the top of Duke Street.
There I was at about 5 p.m., covering proceedings on behalf of the Grand Old Lady of North Street, when a most fascinating debate ensued about the influence of drug money and other illegal activities on the country's political system.
National Security Minister, Dr. Peter Phillips, gave a solemn warning that wicked men whose business involve drug trafficking and other nefarious activities, were moving in to put a death grip on the country's politics.
"There is a clear and present danger to our political process... if we ignore it, we ignore it to our peril," the Minister warned.
As I sat there and listened to him, the question that kept spinning around in my head was: "when did he know this?" The danger of persons of questionable background funding and supporting political candidates didn't come about yesterday.
The link between politics and the criminal underworld has existed in Jamaica for many years. These criminals whether they are drug dons or pickpockets have always provided vital support for political candidates, especially during elections. In return, many benefit from political protection when the law catches up with them.
There have been several cases in which MPs have engineered bail for notorious bad men charged for serious crimes by the police. Were they simply being good representatives or were they paying up on debts owed? What do you think?
But I'm sure Dr. Phillips knows all about the link between criminality and politics. Didn't he, along with two of his Cabinet colleagues attend the funeral of Willy Haggart a reputed gang leader with international criminal links?
Despite the best attempts by Dr. Phillips and his colleagues to justify their association with Willy Haggart, the fact is that their actions created further suspicion and distrust of politicians. But the attempt to justify is all a part of the rotten political hypocrisy that robs our leaders of the moral authority to govern a country that is fast slipping into a state of anarchy.
How can you tell young men not to get involved in crime when you are associating with criminals? And can the government really talk about values and attitudes when persons of questionable background are seen benefiting from lucrative government contracts?
I'm not seeking to beat up on Minister Phillips or the governing party on this issue. This is a matter that cuts across party lines. Both former Prime Ministers Michael Manley and Edward Seaga had known links with persons of questionable background.
Before he died, Mr. Manley expressed regret about some of his associations and admitted that they sent the wrong message to the society. However, I've never heard any such statement of remorse from Mr. Seaga with regard to his association with the likes of the infamous Jim Brown the late don of Tivoli Gardens. I suspect hell will freeze over before any of us hears him admit that his actions sent the wrong signal.
I don't see how political leaders can hope to recover their sagging moral authority if they don't cut the links with criminals, whether they are large drug dealers or 'small fries' preying on helpless communities. During the last election campaign I remember seeing a prominent political candidate being escorted at a mass rally by a young man with glistening handgun. The ragamuffin youth pushed ahead through a thick crowd, clearing the way for the candidate who held on to his shirttail. That candidate went on to win his seat and now sits in the House of Representatives.
THE BLUNDERING BAR
The Jamaican Bar Association last week Tuesday committed what I think was an egregious wrong. Some 40 members from the Association staged a protest in the House over a recent court ruling, which allowed the police to search the Chambers of two attorneys-at-law. Dressed in their black gowns, the lawyers held placards, which read: "confidence betrayed." The protest action was an obvious breach of the House rules as was pointed out by Speaker Michael Peart. Looking on, I found it ironic that lawyers should be breaching the rules of the House to protest what they argue is the state's breach of the fundamental principle of the lawyer/ client privilege.
Just their presence in the visitors' gallery was sufficient. There was no need for placards. One might have expected such desperate behaviour from the voiceless in the inner-city, not from an influential body such as the Bar Association.
Send comments to: vernon.daley@gleanerjm.com
