Peter Espeut Politicians (and policemen) must hate tape recorders - and video cameras. The old-fashioned "I was mis-quoted" just won't work when the talk-show hosts can replay the exact words you said, with the original tone of voice and emphasis; and there is a limit to what the "spin doctors" can do in the face of plain words. And there is nothing that changes the hackneyed "they fired first and we returned the fire" police story faster than the showing of amateur video footage. How politicians (and policemen) must hate tape recorders - and video cameras! I suspect that soon they might be declared illegal!
I don't know about you, but I react very badly to spin doctors. When some patent wrong is committed, instead of coming clean and admitting the error, a smokescreen is thrown up suggesting that nothing wrong was done at all! Even in the face of audio and videotape recordings of what was actually said or done!
Fundamentally spin doctors are liars. How profoundly they lie depends on how stupid they believe their target audience is. Both the JLP and the PNP spin doctors believe that we Jamaicans are profoundly stupid. Maybe they are right! We are stupid if we believe that mismanagement is exuberance, and the cutting of legal corners is evidence of wishing to get on with the job.
Spin doctors come in all shapes and sizes: clients and creations of the government of one kind or another - like various committees, commissions of enquiry, "independent" investigators, "independent" talk shows, and the like. The results are all the same: innocence and complete exoneration. And the formula for declaring innocence is always the same: if a person is charged with "X", they are loudly declared innocent of "Y" (which is usually true but irrelevant), and so the impression is given that the person is also innocent of "X" although "X" (the main issue) is not addressed. It is a fundamentally dishonest and corrupt strategy obvious to all, which we allow. Why is it corrupt as well as dishonest? Because it excuses (and therefore allows) the misuse of public funds, and sometimes even criminality.
Ultimately we allow dishonesty because we ourselves are dishonest. We allow politicians to give themselves land because secretly we want some too; and we allow them to award contracts to each other because we want to become political favourites too. And we close our eyes to corruption because one day we may need a favour. Honesty means to deny ourselves advantage, like finding money and turning it in instead of keeping it; or calling a spade a spade even if it means that we lose friends (or business) or our jobs in the process. Jamaica lacks sufficient honest people in the public and private sectors (and the church) to create a country where corruption is not the norm. Jamaica lacks sufficient honest people in politics.
Use of the parliament and executive power by politicians for their own advantage is the greatest possible misuse of power, the most profound conflict of interest. The best political systems have mechanisms to reduce this kind of thing: mechanisms to detect it, and mechanisms to punish it. In the United States, politicians cannot vote themselves salary increases; pay hikes must be debated openly in the House, and do not become effective until after the next election; the electorate have an opportunity to show their displeasure. There is a consummate arrogance in giving yourself a 103% pay increase immediately after an election (with no debate), and offering teachers only 3%. Which creates a massive budget deficit requiring fiscal austerity. And then you magnanimously put on hold further increases until one of these famous committees reports! This is not just arrogance, but contempt for the teachers and the Jamaican public! And it is profound political miscalculation; the Local Government elections will be interesting.
Pensions of civil servants are calculated based on their last salary, such that some pensioners are receiving paltry sums; but the pension of the Prime Minister is based on the salary of the present Prime Minister. How can this be fair and just? This sort of favouritism is immoral.
In this political context, when someone announces that they are entering politics (essentially to rub shoulders with exuberant and corner-cutting people), I become exceedingly cynical. I am especially wary of those who say they know politics is a dirty business, but they intend to change the system. This sounds like the beginning of a trek towards prosperity.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist, and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
