Orville Taylor | Conflicts of interest again

Being right and wrong at the same time is possible, especially when you are a man and, more so, when you are ‘the man’. Being the man, one’s most important and fundamental role is to be that simply: a man first and then everything after.

Other roles, deeply connected to maleness, include fatherhood and ‘husbandhood’. Inasmuch as this is not a proper English word, people in spousal relationships get it.

At a recent function, the point was emphasised that an individual’s single most significant obligation is being, first and foremost, a good human being; as much as possible, a complete spirit and certainly not a half-soul.

Far too many people succeed institutionally or in larger society and fail miserably at home, as fathers, spouses and, importantly, as offspring.

Yup! For me, there is nothing that subverts the primary dictate: ‘honour your father and your mother’. Parental respect and support and the biblical consequence of longevity do not speak of physical punishment, not an automatic prolongation of life. Thus, the message is simply that nothing should displace that initial obligation.

In fact, some people erroneously believe that the other biblical verses which speak of leaving one’s parents and cleaving to another human and becoming one flesh remove the first covenant in one’s relationship of initiation. Quite the contrary, the addition of another to the initial flesh should be nothing more than additional resources to the original unit that carries out the task of parental honouring. The ‘one flesh’ must still fulfil the obligations of reverence, which the original ‘meat puppet’ must undertake.

A parent does not have to earn one’s respect. The simple act of having unprotected sex or choosing not to swallow the aspirin and cola is enough reason for eternal gratitude. Being born is the result of overcoming astronomical odds of 10³0 (a billion trillion trillion), against all sperm cells and ovules ever produced.

There is really no conflict of interest between being a good son and a good husband. Ask yourself the simple question, ‘If your mother is starving and you had a choice between going to bed hungry yourself, and her eating, what would you do?’ Ah! So, if you and your wife are one flesh, what is the choice?

A good spouse should never put his wife in a position where she has to choose between being a good wife and daughter.

Nevertheless, there are indeed times when both roles are diametrically opposed. In such cases, one has to choose. There is a subtle difference between a difficult and a hard decision.

In institutions which are not personal property, one must operate according to the principles of a bureaucracy, a concept advanced by 18th- to 20th-century sociologist Max Weber.

Core elements are a clear division of labour, an unambiguous hierarchy and chain of command, formal and inviolable rules with procedures for enforcement, and impersonality.

This last one is key. Positions are not possessions and cannot be passed on to others like personal property. Relationships, such as filial and spousal and even fraternal, are totally irrelevant. In bureaucracies such as the Jamaican parliament, it is completely immaterial that any number of members might be related by blood or any other bodily fluid.

In the present ‘F’-graded kerfuffle, which makes a mockery of decency and sets a disgusting template for youth behaviour, the above-mentioned elements have come to the fore.

Speaker of the House Juliet Holness, whose first duty is to be a good daughter, wife and mother, has been harshly criticised in her official bureaucratic role. True, these acts of excoriation raise questions about her character. However, that is par for the course.

Yet, it is easy to empathise when her husband and children’s daddy, Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness, jumps in to defend her. After all, no mixing up of subject and predicate here; a man’s spouse is his right hand.

A thin line

It is a thin line, because, as a husband, if a man styles a member of my household, even if she is wrong, I am standing with her.

And it is for such reasons that, in bureaucracies such as Parliament and universities, there are unambiguous rules to avoid conflicts of interest.

Conflicts of interest may be ‘actual’, where the position of an individual as regards his other connections and interests totally runs counter to those of the institution. Second, there may be ‘potential’. In such cases, the individual is not actively doing anything to bring the institution into disrepute. Nevertheless, irrespective of the character or integrity of the individual, there is always the possibility that it can occur, even if the incumbent has a conscience and ethical framework as clean as my maths homework book from high school.

Finally, there is ‘perceived’ conflict of interest. We in the behavioural sciences know that human beings do not act based on what reality is. Rather, we act and structure our behaviour based on what we believe or perceive to be reality. For example, if a heterosexual Christian man chooses to dress like his sister and imitate her voice even once, there is always a potential that he will be perceived as gay, even if his geometry set has no protractors.

In Parliament, there are Standing Orders, and on my own plantation there is an elaborate set of procedures and binding contractual guidelines as to how to act properly to avoid all of the above.

Still, in all of this, there are fundamental questions in both places. Where there is prima facie evidence of ethical misconduct, a natural procedure should exist for the initiation of disciplinary processes which do not require the assent of anyone.

In proper bureaucracies, we ought to find ways of having greater oversight over the oversighters.

Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at Department of Sociology at The University of the West Indies, a radio talk-show host, and author of ‘Broken Promises, Hearts and Pockets’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and tayloronblackline@hotmail.com.