THE CYNICS need not be proved right on this one. Monday's verbal commitment by leaders of the two major political parties to have their elected Members of Parliament (MPs) and other political candidates denounce in writing their abhorrence of criminal association is a symbolic but important first step to restore order in the country.
The commitment is tacit admission of the links to criminality, but it could hardly have been ignored. For while crime is not the exclusive domain of the country's political system, it can be a critical nexus in the battle for state power and patronage.
And while the written commitments will be welcomed there are inherent flaws in the proposal. For example, the call is for politicians to state that they will not "knowingly" associate with criminals. That's a neat escape hatch; and it also raises the question as to who really is a criminal.
Politicians have in the past used as a defence the non-existence of criminal records for attendance at the funerals of community leaders of questionable character from their constituencies.
But residents in inner-city communities will point out that although many leaders in these areas have no criminal records, they still hold entire communities to ransom through their influence, whether real or perceived.
The Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ), the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), and the Government should tell the nation in clear terms, whether criminal association will include persons of questionable character who wield strong influence, but who might never have been convicted in a court of law.
Another major point the stakeholders need to examine is the body to which errant MPs or political candidates will report. In order for Monday's proposals to work, there must be a body independent of the political parties and with requisite teeth to impose sanctions and make politicians accountable.
There are already examples of politicians frequently ignoring the law in other areas of public life; for example, the Integrity Act. Politicians are lawfully required to file financial statements annually to the Integrity Commission. But every year Members of Parliament and Senators are reported to their respective parties and even to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for failing to comply with the law. And what is the result? More often than not, a mild rebuke from their respective leaders.
This is why we think Mr. Bruce Golding's suggestion for the establishment of a monitoring committee headed by the Political Ombudsman, with representatives from the Church, the police force, and a human rights organisation, should be accepted without equivocation.
It will hardly make politicians saints overnight, but it should go a far way in cleaning up the present mess.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
