Ian BoyneThe issue involving Andrew Gallimore's trenchant parliamentary attack on Gordon 'Butch' Stewart's management of Air Jamaica and the consequent row between Stewart and Jamaica Labour Party Leader Bruce Golding over its handling by the party raises some critical public issues which must be explored.
There are issues having to do with the use of Parliament, the independence and freedom of parliamentarians vis-à-vis their party, the influence of Big Money on the political process, the so-called objectivity of the 'free press' and the personal integrity of journalists and commentators.
On occasions too numerous to enumerate I have thought, as I have listened to or read contributions to controversial issues in Jamaica, that if only people had done some philosophy or had been exposed to discourses on logical thinking, the quality of our discussion in this country would be considerably improved.
Take the current vitriolic and emotionally-charged issue surrounding the well-known business mogul's stewardship of Air Jamaica which racked up US$699 million in debt which the Jamaican people now have to shoulder. JLP Member of Parliament Andrew Gallimore, whose brother Miguel had been involved in a bitter, years-long dispute with Air Jamaica from which he was fired, went to the House and delivered a scorching presentation which stunned even Mr. 'Anti-Corruption', Audley Shaw. Golding was profoundly embarrassed and angry at this.
APPALLING BEHAVIOUR
I cannot comment honestly on the issues raised by Gallimore because I have not read the speech. However, I can comment on the view that simply because he has some animus toward Butch Stewart and has deep personal reasons for wanting to discredit Stewart that means, ipso facto, that what he had to say is inaccurate and of no merit. That is fallacious reasoning. Indeed, some of the most startling revelations of corruption, mismanagement and improprieties have been uncovered by people who, indeed, had motives which propelled them to find the evidence.
When people repose trust and confidence in others, they are not usually as probing and as critical of those persons' actions and hence they tend to overlook weaknesses and corruption precisely because they have blind spots. It is no accident that most of the scandals uncovered around the world have been revealed by political and corporate enemies, not friends. So the fact that Andrew Gallimore might have had the strong, compelling desire to destroy and to get even with Butch Stewart is no conclusive argument that what he said was false.
But it is dishonourable, reprehensible and a breach of public trust to use one's position to advance personal resentments. It is an appalling lack of character and unworthy of anyone holding public office. Emotional control is a prerequisite for those holding public office. We must carefully separate the issues. If, indeed, we have established that Andrew Gallimore's sole motive was to malign, the fact that his malice might have led him to some truth does not absolve him of the dishonour of having corrupt motives.
EXAMINING GALLIMORE'S ARGUMENTS
But having established that Gallimore's motives are impure does not mean we have no obligation to examine the arguments adduced to see whether any has merit. Critics of Gallimore must spend more time destroying his arguments, showing they are without merit and groundless, rather than merely recite his motives.
We have to disengage our emotions when assessing critical issues. I have known and had a good relationship with Butch Stewart from 1983 when I was press secretary and speechwriter to then JLP Minister of Industry Douglas Vaz. Butch, a close friend of Vaz, would come over regularly in the evenings to drink Scotch with Dougie and a few others.
Butch has always had the kindest things to say about me. But one of the things I have managed to do in my journalistic career is to separate personal feelings and likes from my professional responsibilities and intellectual obligations.
What statements did Andrew Gallimore make which constituted an abuse of parliamentary privilege? Are impure motives themselves enough to constitute parliamentary abuse? Then, if so, we have to carefully scrutinise
other parliamentarians. Are we naïve enough to believe that parliamentarians do not speak out of their selfish concerns and personal vendetta? Yes, let us raise the bar, indeed, but it can't be raised only for Andrew Gallimore.
BIAS?
I am happy that Butch is so zealous to protect his reputation and that his newspaper, the Jamaica Observer, has been indignant at Gallimore's alleged transgressions. But I have heard more serious, and more wildly unsubstantiated allegations made against politicians and nobody demands that someone be disciplined for that. Nothing I have heard from those excerpts played on Wilmot Perkins' (radio) programme have been more defamatory and slanderous than what I have heard regularly thrown at politicians and Government officials without any editorial protest.
But I have always said that in this country people can kick around politicians without any consequences and with less trepidation than you can with the moneyed class. The specific objections to the Gallimore speech raised by Butch Stewart in his letter of July 12 to Bruce Golding seem tame to the kinds of allegations which have been made against ministers and officials of the present Government. Now I agree with Butch not to let people savage his integrity without a response from him. I am simply saying that for us as journalists and members of civil society, we must exercise the same restraint in swallowing wild allegations of corruption and mismanagement without proper investigation and analysis. There are other issues which arise from this Gallimore-Butch Stewart case.
IS BALANCE A MYTH?
Should we accept as a given that because someone owns a newspaper that we cannot expect balanced, even-handed coverage and commentary on issues involving him? Should we expect a newspaper to take on the kind of crusading fervour which the Jamaica Observer has adopted in this instance? It has not only used its editorials to demand the sacking of Gallimore as parliamentary whip but as Member of Parliament.
How much freedom of the press really exists in Jamaica, or does freedom of the press mean that at least there are other media to which one can go for another perspective? Is it unreasonable and naïve to expect balance and fair comment from a media organ once its owners are in the news?
Are the journalists who work in the private media necessarily freer than those who work in the public media, in that genetically the private capitalists are freedom-loving and non-controlling but the politicians are necessarily restrictive?
DID GOLDING DO ENOUGH?
Having examined the Butch Stewart-Golding correspondence carefully, I have to say that Bruce Golding has again found himself in an unenviable spot. Having made the concession that "I am satisfied that his (Gallimore's) behaviour was motivated less by his concern for the public interest than by the dispute between his brother and Air Jamaica", it is hard not to see the reasonableness of Butch's desire for some public scolding of Gallimore.
Golding admits in that July 15, 2005 letter to Stewart, he condemns "Mr Gallimore's use of Parliament to launch a venomous attack on you and the AJAG". Leo Lambert was careful to stress to me that Butch was not demanding that Gallimore be fired as Parliamentary whip or as M.P.
Bruce Golding is the leader of the JLP, not Butch Stewart. But Butch wants some public, unequivocal reprimand of and dissociation from Gallimore's action. This is absolutely justified in light of Golding's private concession to Butch.
It is hard to see that after accepting that a parliamentarian was "motivated less by his concern for the public interest" than by a family dispute, how you don't even suspend him from his position for a while or make a statement in Parliament repudiating his speech. Golding conceded too much to have given so little.
Reasonable people will see that in light of Golding's concession, Butch's insistence that something further be done is perfectly rational. Some of the larger issues have to do with whether the JLP itself was not too soft on Butch in the Air Jamaica issue.
Butch Stewart and the AJAG group were swift in denying the very serious charge that, in effect, they were seeking to use their wealth to punish the JLP for not bowing to the group demands. No small group of persons must have such an overweening influence over our politics so as to push our elected officials around. (But then some would say, is that not what politics is about in societies like ours?).
The issue of how political parties are financed must be seriously debated as should the issue of the responsibility of professional journalists and columnists to the owners of the media companies for which they work. How much freedom do we really have to criticise and to probe the issues involving those who pay us, and how far will we go to sing for our supper? Grave ethical issues weigh on these questions. And this is where personal integrity, courage and the willingness to be punished for standing up for principles come in.
The connection between holding to high ethical standards and the use of power is another critical issue which must be put on the agenda.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can send your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com or infocus@gleanerjm.com
