Peter EspeutTEN YEARS ago this week I wrote my first weekly column for The Gleaner. I was asked to take over the space (I never attempted to fill the shoes) of Professor Carl Stone who was unwell (incidentally, this week is also a decade since his death). Ten years and over 500 columns later it is time to take stock.
It certainly has been interesting, starting with the very first column. I called it "Lean and Mawgah Government", and argued that government downsizing was fine if it led to increased efficiency what some people call 'lean and mean'. At the time a directive had gone out requiring government departments to cut staff by 18 per cent, with no consideration of the staff complement required for each department to do an efficient job. I argued that these across the board staff cuts would lead to 'mawgah' and emaciated government rather than a streamlined one.
In the column I mentioned the woefully understaffed Fisheries Division of the Ministry of Agriculture which had only six Fisheries Officer posts, all vacant and frozen, with so much work to be done. Before noon I received a call from the Ministry of the Public Service accusing me of doing them a disservice, and that their directive was based on in-depth management audits. It also prompted a call to the Director of Fisheries by the Ministry of the Public Service accusing him of breaching the Official Secrets Act by telling me that he had six vacancies, which I suppose was a national secret.
After that auspicious beginning I wrote a column on Haiti still under military rule based on a visit from which I had just returned, and I passed on information I had received that the United States government had been funding the illegal military junta which had overthrown President Aristide. Before 10:00 am I received a call from the Political Attaché at the US Embassy here in Kingston denying any such thing, and demanding the source of my information. As it turns out, my information was correct, but I quickly learnt that when you write, some people read it, including those whose corns you might mash.
I suppose I have mashed many corns over the last 10 years. When you set out to tell the truth you will have to step on a few toes, but that's OK. I often am told "I didn't like what you said in your column .", and my rejoinder is always, "But was it true?" Telling the truth is certain to mash corns, and no apologies for that. Truth is something we often go to great lengths to avoid, and when you 'talk plain' you run the risk of victimisation.
But as many corns as I may have mashed, until now I have not received a death threat because of a column. Indeed I am often asked whether I am not afraid for my life when I attack political violence, electoral fraud and corruption as I do. The policy, I think, is to ignore my writings on these matters, hoping that I will get tired. Others choose not to try to engage in debate to refute the content of my column, but decide to resort to personal abuse, both to my face and in the press. I have been called all sorts of names: just last Wednesday in this newspaper I was abused and called a heretic and some other choice names by a putative 'Christian' who was offended by my attack upon fundamentalist Christianity. I suppose it goes with the territory.
But have the last 10 years been worth it? Have I made a difference? I am not sure. I have criticised garrisons and dons and political violence, but all these seem to be thriving and growing. I have castigated the police for brutality and violence, but the incidents seem to be increasing. I have written on environmental issues, yet the destruction of the environment through the complicity of officialdom continues to increase, even more nakedly than before. The relevant Minister still routinely signs waivers allowing the importation of extra-large tractor-trailers too big for our roads; and they still exceed the legal speed limit of 20 MPH for articulated vehicles (I suppose they must have waivers for that also).
True, there have been positives. Success in the campaign to save the northern section of Hope Gardens from falling to the axe was consoling, although it was quickly offset by the destruction of a section of Long Mountain. The juxtaposition of the portfolios of housing and the environment was a serious conflict of interest, and I was happy when the Prime Minister separated them; but the new conflicts created with the association of land and the environment may prove to be worse than before.
It is a privilege and a challenge to be a columnist, each week to hang out one's thoughts for all to see, inviting support or debate, and I suppose, ridicule. I have consciously tried to set aside my university vocabulary and to write so the majority are able to follow what I am trying to say. I have concentrated on rural development and environmental issues, as well as issues to do with human development and justice. I have tried to be faithful to the Judeo-Christian tradition into which I was born and to which I give my support and service. I am against abortion, capital punishment and flogging; my views are not popular in contemporary Jamaica, but I do not believe morality is determined by an opinion poll, and I will continue to argue my point of view as long as I am allowed.
I have been well supported by The Gleaner editors. In the last 10 years there have been only four pieces The Gleaner has refused to print. In recent years the printer's devil has been sent on long leave, for which I am grateful.
I trust that my second 10 years will be as lively as the first, that it will be as civil, and that something good will come out of it all!
Peter Espeut is a Roman Catholic deacon and a sociologist, and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
