Orville Taylor | Corruption perception matters

Sean ‘Puff Daddy’, ‘P Diddy’ Combs has not yet been convicted of anything, period. And as ghastly as the allegations are, we must be careful when we throw stones.

No corny references to Jesus’ admonition to the onlookers when they wanted to stone the female adulteress; the more precise comment is about living in glass houses, and Jamaica is full of crockery in our breakfront.

Despite certainly not carrying any brief for the disruptive member of parliament, there is little to war about, regarding the fundamental principle that the Integrity Commission (IC) must be transparent and subject to scrutiny in all its operations. Of course, there seem to have been too much fish to fry and at best, inquiries over the past few weeks were really red herrings.

It is a dangerous course, when a society believes that anyone, especially the powerful, should be outside of scrutiny by the people or constituents it ultimately serves.

Inasmuch as my consistent view has been that the corruption perception index (CPI) does not measure actual venality in government, but rather, what the citizens ‘believe’, it is a very useful statistic, and we must ‘tikya’.

Yes, belief cures and certainly kills. Moreover, all humans act on the basis of what they ‘think’ is the truth, rather than what is. Of course, honest people seek to find the smallest gap possible between perception and reality. Often, especially when the victim seems to be transparency; reality and perception are close. Therefore, one must feed the right type of fodder to the people’s imaginations.

PERCEPTION

Politics is all about perception and less about governance. However, governance directly affects perception and most important, electoral behaviour. In simple language people vote according to what they feel to be so, rather than what is so. Therefore, it suits any current or aspiring party to convince the electorate that it is honest and acting in a fashion consistent with the interest of the people.

The battle against corruption must take place on multiple fronts. It must start with an assumption that every single individual, especially those funded by the Jamaican people, should be as open in every single thing that they do, when handling the money which comes from the people, including their own salaries. Thus, there can be absolutely no compromise, that everyone, from the governor general down to the janitorial staff, should be able to explain how they acquire any kind of wealth.

This is simply a ‘no-brainer’. In fact, I have been so resolute that I believe that the IC should not only have remit regarding publicly-owned entities such as Petrojam and the National Housing Trust, among others, but being an individual whose main income is partially funded by the Jamaican people, that senior people, including all tenured staff at the University of the West Indies, should also toe the IC line. Indeed, I have said both privately and publicly, that the structures whereby employees of the institution can be brought to proceedings for misconduct should exclude no one, including the Chancellor himself.

In fact, I would be a hypocrite if I were to not take a zero-tolerance approach regarding the administration of justice, especially when the larger prize is the elimination or reduction of corruption in high places.

As stated in previous columns, if we are really serious about corruption; we will want no one to be able to hide unexplained wealth in this society.

Thus, in as much as it might irk some of my attorney colleagues who believe that client privilege should protect their criminal clients; if they discover illegal wealth, we should accept that there are times when a greater purpose is served than protecting a single individual.

After all, we have already made it clear in the Child Care and Protection Act, that lawyers cannot hide any knowledge of child abuse, period.

COPIOUS EVIDENCE

A more comprehensive column is needed to elaborate the point. However, there is copious evidence that dirty money is not only harmful to our entire system of governance but it distorts the economy and ultimately the future of the country, in ways unimaginable to the average individual, who believes that snitching is wrong.

Filthy lucre is a cancer, which, if not cauterised, puts us all at risk. Therefore, unless an individual can prove that the fine he is paying to the courts, based on his conviction, is from a clean source, the money should not only be rejected for such purposes, but the necessary inquiry under the Proceeds of Crime Act should take place.

Consequently, therefore, it would stand to reason that if you cannot pay the court from the proceeds of your drug deal or other criminal activity, you absolutely should not be able to pay your attorney with such funds.

And let me state this unambiguously, any attorney who accepts as her legal fee, money, which she believes, might not have come from legal activities, even if she finds a needle eye loophole to accept such payments, is really no better than any other criminal who launders money.

Sauce for the goose and gander, and the drake must get what the duck gets. Until we are totally committed to such a regimen; then not only will the CPI be high, but so will the opportunities for corruption itself increase.

Although not a perfect correlation, a dip in the CPI generally precedes losses by the incumbent party. So, for example, in 2007 and 2011, this occurred.

And here is a word to the wise. Recent Don Anderson polls indicate declining confidence on the part of the electorate.

Numbers generally do not lie; but sometimes people do.

Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer at the 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