Sun | Jun 13, 2021

Dudus, Manatt and rediscovering trust

Published:Sunday | December 6, 2015 | 12:00 AMAva Ramdeen

An enquiry, or a commission, is oftentimes said to be a leader's method of delegating his/her conscience to a group of people, rather than making the bold and needed corrections that are needed to remedy the situation.

This, by the way, may mean or necessitate them resigning from office. Either that, or this entity is set up as a mere machinery to appease, with that leader having little or no intention of implementing any changes concerned with the subject matter being investigated.

I must start by saying that a call for transparency does not necessarily mean that more trust will flow, as transparency does not reduce deception, if in fact it was in operation prior to this 'intervention'.

Central to all this is the fact that the sitting Government sought through its sitting ministers and public officials (some unknowingly) to avert an imminent situation, which they thought could have affected their critical mass. The matter was cloaked under the guise of protecting the individual's human rights. This Commission sought "transparency," and the results have been thus far half-truths, massaging of the truth, vague and evasive answers and avoidance of sensitive issues. This all amounts to a political-correctness that is either self-censorship, or deception.

If you believed Senator Dwight Nelson, or most of his utterings, I have a few bridges and castles from London that I would love to sell you all!

If you believed Senator Ronald Robinson to be nearer to the spectrum of full-truth, I think you would be correct. He may have been, simply put, nothing more than a pawn.

The lack of transparency of the memoranda, both in its existence and location, is the Government's major defence. Well, let's inject a little realism into this by asking a question and giving the answer as well:

"If an 800-pound gorilla is in the room, where does he sit?"

Answer: Anywhere he wants to!

The United States of America was in the room, and if during that time, while discussing content/agreement (the memoranda), they chose to sit on top of human rights, instead of the chair, who could have done anything about it if it was deemed critical to their national interests?

Most interesting in this case was that the Jamaican Government, under Bruce Golding, was not able, or hadn't the political will, to deal with a don of this magnitude. It had to be done by an external ultimatum.

This attempt to garner transparency surrounding the memoranda has brought many 'conspiracy theories' to the fore. One such theory is that Dr Phillips shrouded them in secrecy because its operations would, or could, in the future, be used to target both JLP and PNP interests and this would be to the chagrin of many of his colleagues.

If, as a people, we want to increase trust, we need to avoid and frown on deception and peer more intently and critically into the secrecy involved.

- Guest columnist Ava Ramdeen is a former staff writer and subeditor of The Daily Gleaner and The Daily News. Email feedback to and kandiearth@hotmail.