Anthony Harriot, Contributor

PERHAPS IT may be helpful to discuss what is meant by institutionalised corruption. It has in part to do with the normalisation and acceptance of corrupt practices. This is the outcome of a process that begins with the tolerance of corrupt practices and ends with these practices being taken for granted or unquestioningly accepted as normal conduct.

Those who question or resist such practices are regarded as trouble-makers who are disrespectful of authority and 'culture' and\or 'bad-minded'people who do not like to see others 'eat a food.'

Negative moral qualities are attributed not to those that are engaged in corruption but rather to those who oppose it. This is a sure sign of institutionalisation.

Inthe context of complex organisations, institutionalisation also involves the pathways along which the corrupt influences travel. If they shadow or travel along the hierarchical structure of an organisation, then this is an indicator of institutionalisation.

A CASE IN POINT

A good example of this is the current case against the Chief Justice of Trinidad and Tobago Mr. Satnarine Sharma. He is accused of trying to influence the outcome of the recent trial of former Prime Minister Panday. These allegations were made by the trial judge Chief Magistrate Sherman McNicolls.

The Chief Justice has since made counter charges of corruption against his accuser and of the abuse of the powers of his office on the part of the current PM. Indeed, he may very well be a victim of Prime Ministerial overreach. Nevertheless the allegations have led to efforts to impeach him.

There is also asecond case against the Chief Justice for attempting to influence the outcome of a murder trial in which the accused was a prominent surgeon.

These allegations and counter-allegations illustrate what Stone meant by judges "rendering corrupt judgements in response to power." This defeats the whole point of the rule of law and the role of the judiciary which is to protect us from the whims of the powerful. Corruption is after all not just about money.

Judicial corruption may find expression in specific judgements by particular judges but may not take a generalised pattern. Power and influence may be exercised by direct contact with the targeted person and need not be routed through the formal channels. It may be an individualised matter that targets the vulnerable. The solution to this problem is simply to remove the vulnerable individuals.

Power may also be directed through the formal institutional channels and travel with established authority. Identifying the pathways along which corrupt influences travel is a critical issue if we wish to properly characterise it and elaborate an effective response to it. Corrupting pressures that are applied via the authority structures, via the system of appointment and accountability implies an element of institutional corruption. Structural change is usually required in order to remedy such situations.

As already noted, the statement of the Special Task Force on Crime (STFC) did not claim that corruption was institutionalised in the judiciary but nevertheless the measures that are proposed imply that there is a structural problem.

These measures include removing the judiciary from the Ministry of Justice and making the Chief Justice both the judicial and administrative head of the judicial arm of the state. This may involve giving him\her greater control over its budget and to thereby blunt the effects of this lever of power that governments now have at their disposal. The intent is to increase the independence of the judicial arm and to block the pathways through which the powerful may corruptly influence the process while introducing new means of accountability of the judiciary.

PLAYING FAIR

The report does not state the obvious that "there are good judges" as so many tend to do in trying to be fair (and politically correct) in treating with corruption in the police force. This is completely unnecessary in the case of the judiciary. We wish only to raise another red flag (following those already raised by Stone, the Caribbean Group for Cooperation in Economic Development (CGCED) report, and former Minister Knight) and to make some suggestions for structural change.

As a researcher who is at times called on by the media houses to comment on the crime problem, I am repeatedly faced with the issue of how to treat with this matter responsibly.

It means being measured. It means at times being silent and allowing the authorities to act. It means making an ass of myself on radio by speaking and yet saying nothing. At times it also means facing squarely the difficult issues and not yielding to political correctness or holding one's head in the sand, but rather confronting both political and administrative power.

I wish that those who speak so much about ethics and values would say a bit more about the values that are required to encourage free and open debate on difficult issues. It begins with respect and includes trust, just a little trust of each other. One of the great things about working with the MacMillan-led STFC is that we felt free to speak openly about our different political views and then proceeded to engage our work as if only Jamaica mattered.

There was nothing to indicate that anyone had any hidden agendas (our stated agenda was to encourage two-party agreement). We freely engaged each other and the persons who were kind enough to give of their time and yielded only to evidence and reason.

Like other Jamaicans, I can be a bit cynical at times. Some of our political leaders give us good reasons to be. At times they give the distinct impression that their primary concern is with preserving their power. I however have never lost hope.