Peter Espeut | They just don’t get it

Last Thursday (June 29), the Jamaica Information Service (JIS) issued a press release containing the following:

“When the reform of Jamaica’s Constitution is completed and the country is established as a Republic, the functions of its President could be hybrid. That is the word from Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs, Hon. Marlene Malahoo Forte, who co-chairs the Constitutional Reform Committee, which is guiding the process of removing the British Monarch as Head of State. Speaking on Wednesday (June 28) at a public consultation town hall meeting in Portland, the Minister updated that ‘at this stage, we’re leaning towards a hybrid presidency. Not a ceremonial president but a president that will exercise a set of powers – some ceremonial, some executive. We’re tailor-making something for the Jamaican people’ ”.

Minister Malahoo Forte is doing a good job of convincing the Jamaican public that these “public consultation town hall meetings” are nothing but public relations (PR) exercises where the government announces the latest ruminations of the secret Constitutional Reform Committee. Several of these PR meetings have been held so far, and people do have a few minutes at the end of the announcements and disclosures to propose their ideas.

I would like the minister to tell me at which of these “public consultation town hall meetings” did the idea of a “hybrid president” come up? Which single suggestion made by any member of the public has found its way into the deliberations of the secret committee?

The public is asking for genuine consultation; we are getting announcements about what the secret committee is “tailor-making … for the Jamaican people”.

It rankles!

In the face of public criticism, by not opening up the meetings of the Constitutional Reform Committee to the media, the government is giving the impression that it has something to hide. Don’t they get it?

Just last month (on June 11) a Sunday Gleaner commissioned public opinion poll was published showing that – in public perception – politicians have now surpassed the police as the most corrupt group in Jamaica. Does this bother them? Apparently not!

EMBARRASSING

It was embarrassing when the contractor general consistently reported nepotism and cronyism in the award of government contracts, and so how did the politicians respond? In 2017 they abolished the post of contractor general, and merged its functions into the new Integrity Commission – except that now, information on who the government enters contracts with is a state secret. And nepotism and cronyism are still not criminal offences.

Doesn’t this smell to high heaven?

The Integrity Commission Act 2017 empowers the commission to “prepare codes of conduct and other advisory material relating to corruption” [Section 6 (1)(g)]; so the Integrity Commission used the Seven Principles of Public Life – also known as the Nolan principles – developed by the government of the United Kingdom to prepare a code of conduct to guide the behaviour of Jamaican politicians. The opposition signs, but the government party stubbornly refuses. Does this not give the impression that the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) is reluctant to abide by globally accepted standards of ethics and good governance? Don’t they get it? Doesn’t the JLP government understand why people are losing confidence in them?

Using these internationally accepted standards, Jamaica’s Integrity Commission repeatedly finds Jamaican politicians wanting, but cannot recommend prosecution because the same politicians refuse to criminalise political corruption. “I broke no law” is the common refrain. Yes! YOU pass the laws, and YOU make sure that no law is passed to send you away for a long time.

The Jamaican public is in debt to the Integrity Commission for plugging away at unearthing public corruption despite the gag clause and the lack of punitive legislation. You can tell the Integrity Commission is doing a good job by the number of high-ranking politicians publicly criticising it and trying to neuter it.

DISLIKED

The other anti-corruption watchdog disliked by shady politicians and public servants is the Auditor General of Jamaica. Fearless and factual, Jamaica’s Auditor General investigates impropriety in government spending, and regularly tables reports in parliament revealing wastage, and misappropriation of government funds.

The Auditor General of Jamaica sits on the Integrity Commission, and it is not surprising that some politicians want her removed.

Over the decades, the practice has been that all reports from the Auditor General are tabled upon receipt by the Lower House, so that the public can peruse the findings. That is transparency! They were able to silence the Contractor General; don’t you think they would want to do the same with the Auditor General?

Earlier this week (on CARICOM Day no less!), the Speaker of the House announced that in future, reports received from the Auditor General will be withheld for two months before tabling to allow the relevant minster to respond. The Speaker claims to be following the law the way the politicians wrote it.

Don’t they realise that this will appear to be an attempt to silence the Auditor General? Do they care? Don’t they get it?

Of course, prior to submitting her report to parliament, the Auditor General gives portfolio ministers time to respond to the findings, and to mount a defence. If the minister fails to respond in the statutory period, the tabling of the report exposes the allegations. If the Speaker is correct in her interpretation of the law, this would mean that the politicians wrote into the law a way for them to delay the release of a possibly damaging report. Don’t you see how bad this looks?

If that indeed is what the law says, it should be changed forthwith!

In my view, the Holness administration believes the polls; their support is dwindling, and they know they are going to lose the next election. Rolling back the unconscionable salary increase will not reverse adverse public opinion; the damage is already done. They will take their money and run.

Expect more dogmatic and dictatorial decisions, secret meetings, and lack of consultation.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com