Imani Tafari-Ama | Two wrongs don’t make one right

When former Finance Minister, Nigel Clarke initiated the 300 per cent pay rise for members of parliament (MPs), creating a gross salary difference between politicians and lower-level public servants, it initiated renewed scrutiny of the criteria used for selecting candidates for the job of running the country. Issues of corruption, cronyism, character flaws, ethical or moral violations were posed as considerations that could be used to usurp MPs who violated required standards and breached public trust.

However, decision about who is selected to run on a party’s ticket is not a matter subjected to public scrutiny. Conditions governing who gets to stay in office, despite being fingered in scandals or impropriety concerns, are also not matters subject to public inquiry or redress.

That is why the George Wright case looms so large, especially because there was no public resolution of the incident. To recap, three years ago, Jamaicans were shocked at the contents of a viral video recording of a man assaulting a woman with physical blows, a piece of furniture and, from the body language interaction, verbal violence.

At the time of the incident, George Wright, the MP for Central Westmoreland, who was the alleged assailant, was unaware that the incident was being documented. However, Detective Inspector Carl Brown, speaking to The Gleaner, admitted that the elusive Mr. Wright and the woman in question (reportedly now Mr. Wright’s wife), were persons of police interest.

Let us presume that the man seen in the video beating the woman was, indeed, Mr. Wright, since he has not denied that he was the man. Should this abusive behaviour be treated as something that he should answer for, in his role as a public official? The feminist cliché that the personal is political comes to haunt us in this case. Was this just a routine beating, such as has been normalized in a male dominated society, which downplays the pervasive threat of gender-based violence?

FADED INTO THE BACKGROUND

George Wright faded into the background of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) fabric and waited for the dust to blow over. He even attempted entering Parliament in the company of People’s National Party (PNP) MPs. But party-leader Mark Golding was having none of this Opposition shoulder-rubbing and is seen in a YouTube video chasing him away unceremoniously.

However, since Jamaicans are presumed to have short-term memories, lo and behold, George Wright was trotted out by his now reconciled colleagues as the rebranded representative of his constituency. Dr. Dana Morris Dixon’s defence of Wright’s return to the JLP fold as an active candidate for the upcoming General Elections on the grounds that “he has been reinstituted,” fuelled the outrage expressed by the Opposition Peoples’ National Party (PNP). The PNP charged all women in the JLP with complicity in the lack of accountability that has characterized MP Wright’s case

The absence of due process to address Wright’s offensive action also implicates the JLP in the assault. Dr. Morris-Dixon’s assertion that MP Wright is the beneficiary of restitution, begs the question that the party sees their serving of forgiveness as sufficient to quell the critical voices that are calling for a justice approach rather than the proverbial turning of the other cheek.

The PNP’s crying foul suggests that Wright’s reinstatement normalises violence against women and girls as a patriarchal privilege. Since this is public figure and the unfortunate incident happened in a public space, if Mr. Wright is to be forgiven, he would also have to take his case to the public. He should confess his offence to the person that he harmed. He should then seek the public’s permission to return to the partisan political fold.

In other words, the offender cannot presume that forgiveness is automatic. The offence of gender-based violence is bad enough when it is committed in the private space of the household. Mr. Wright’s public assault was recorded and shared widely. It is therefore offensive for Mr. Wright to think that he can just reappear, wipe his slate clean and expect that he can solicit voters’ support without so much as a by your leave.

The principles of restorative justice are predicated on the perpetrator’s appealing to the person who is offended for forgiveness. In this case, Mr. Wright should also consider that the public he purports to serve should also be caucused to restore his legitimacy.

CALLED INTO QUESTION

Ultimately, the matter of who qualifies to serve as an MP is being called into question. Who determines the criteria of selection? Shouldn’t we consider the offence publicly shared in MP Wright’s case as a disqualifier? But how could he pass the bar if there are no established criteria of selection?

Politically speaking, morality is a loaded operational standard in Jamaica. Corruption, extrajudicial killings, and cronyism are among the hallmarks of the political space. So much so, the public is cynical about the possibilities for transformation. So, the question of MP Wright’s restitution is read as turning a blind eye to slackness.

Isat Buchanan’s representation of the PNP in Eastern Portland has been cited as equivalent to the George Wright saga. Buchanan was accused of drug trafficking, for which he spent a decade in prison in the United States, followed by deportation. The difference though is that Isat did his time and subsequently, distinguished himself by qualifying as a lawyer with first class honours. Chalk to cheese comparison.

George Wright’s culpability is further complicated by the fact that his wife did not charge him for the offense. She may have iron-clad registers of forgiveness herself. Kudos to her if she does. But we could also consider that she may have internalized the notion that “if my man does not beat me, he does not love me.” This is often the pathological response of abuse victims who develop learned helplessness responses to their dilemma.

It is not the public’s prerogative to decide whether George Wright is a worthy candidate for heaven or a good husband or father. George Wright can still man up and take the necessary steps to improve the framework of his candidacy for public office. Two wrongs don’t spell one right.

Imani Tafari-Ama, PhD, is a Pan-African advocate and gender and development specialist. Send feedback to i.tafariama@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com