Robert Buddan, POLITICS OF OUR TIME

The prime minister was prime witness at the Manatt-Dudus enquiry week before last. He has come and gone as prime witness. But he has not come and gone as prime suspect. It is hard to say from what he testified that he has been witness to anything important, although we know that from his position he must have been. He hasn't said much that's new, but has denied plenty. Now that this critical stage has passed, we must assess the whole Manatt-Dudus exercise again.

But we must also reassess how our political system works - prime ministerial power, Cabinet responsibility, parliamentary oversight, public-sector independence, judicial separation of powers, and electoral system and electoral laws, and what these mean for democracy. All of them have been implicated in this scandal and enquiry.

The Enquiry

There are two reasons I speculate for having held the enquiry. One, some say, was to turn the whole Manatt-Dudus scandal against the People's National Party (PNP). The matter of Peter Phillips' MOUs was to have helped that cause. It didn't. If anything, it proved Phillips right. If Cabinet perhaps cannot be trusted with sensitive intelligence about wanted persons, it should not be told everything. The leaks to Coke, allegedly from members of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), and some of whom may be members of the Cabinet, disturbingly confirm this. Mr Golding's promised bombshells were duds too. There was nothing to use against the PNP.

The enquiry was set up, according to this view, for political purposes, not for the truth. It has produced neither the truth nor the political effect the JLP had hoped for. In fact, the JLP had not counted on the solicitor general's observation that the JLP was weaving a web of deceit around the whole affair. It had not counted on Senator Dorothy Lightbourne making such an impression of incompetence; or on Senator Dwight Nelson's unconvincing political amnesia. It must surely be the JLP that has been embarrassed.

Nor had the JLP counted on the public servants in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, and the Ministry of Justice itself, defending themselves from attempts to implicate them. The Government came dangerously close to dividing the political directorate and the civil service over this. This could undermine cherished principles of independence between them. Could the JLP govern without the trust of the civil service after this?

The other theory behind the enquiry is that the Manatt-Dudus scandal had so divided the JLP that the only way to prevent a major fallout between the Brady and Golding factions and save the party conference of last November; and to save the face of an embarrassed class of big business sponsors of the party caught in the same bed with downtown sponsors it had always kept a social distance from, was to offer the enquiry as an appeasement. It would also serve to buy Golding time to continue as prime minister, take the heat off of him in the press, and give the private sector reason to re-engage with the Government. The purpose, again, though, was not to tell the truth.

different versions

Did they succeed? We did get the truth, but from public servants as they saw it. We did get an opportunity for the former minister of state, Ronald Robinson, to tell his version, which differs from Golding's account of who sent him abroad for what and to meet with whom. The party was able to hold its conference without gunplay and open quarrels. The private sector did, lamely, return to engaging with the Government, with no condition that the truth be told at the enquiry.

On the other hand, the press has had a field day with what Jamaicans have come to see as a TV spectacle, a soap opera. People have laughed at how the Government has tripped itself up in contradictions and its unconvincing claims of failure to recall, its refusal to comment, or its inability to use email. The Government might have placated its business sponsors, but it cannot govern properly without the trust of the public sector or the public.

According to Golding

There is a 2004 French film called The World According to Bush. There are parallels with the world according to Golding. The film told of the web of deceit wielded by Dick Cheney and George Bush in lying to the American people about the need to invade Iraq. It told of how the administration fabricated a lie against its envoy who said that he found no evidence that Niger was selling nuclear material to Saddam Hussein and how the neoconservatives revealed the name of the envoy's wife, who worked with the American secret service, as a form of revenge. Does any of this sound familiar?

It spoke of the incestuous relationship within America's power elite - the members of the Bush family and those close to his administration in the wealthy but deadly arms and oil business, the ideological coalition of the business class, the religious right and the mainstream media, and how much the media covered up. It told of how Bush lied to Congress in his State of the Union speech. In fact, it said that Bush eventually convened a commission of enquiry into whether Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and then defeated the findings of that commission with a new lie, that even if he did not have those weapons, he would have created them.

There is another parallel. It is in the cold, arrogant and dismissive ways in which Bush and his administration rejected the evidence against their view of things, even when that evidence came from independent organisations like the United Nations or from members of the administration, including Republicans, who disagreed with their policies. Golding's coldness and arrogance at the recent enquiry was also that of someone who knew he had the power of Government and powerful people behind him. He refused to admit to any wrongdoing. He refused to take any responsibility. He found no moral or judgemental error on his part. He showed no remorse and made no apology.

public relations battle

Golding approached the enquiry as a public relations battle between himself and K.D. Knight. He did not see it to be about his responsibilities as prime minister and JLP leader. As prime minister and party leader, he did not feel he had to intervene in processes he knew about, or actions he discovered connected to this scandalous affair as he should in fact have.

At the end of Mr. Golding's appearance, the prime witness did not answer the main questions. Who paid Manatt? Who tipped off Coke? Who hired Manatt on behalf of the JLP, or, as Manatt said, on behalf of the GOJ? Did Golding's Government try to sabotage Coke's extradition because Coke was a supporter of his party and a major figure in his constituency?

The commission must now decide if its purpose has been served. Taxpayers expect something of substance considering the cost to them. Did taxpayers pay for the truth or, as I speculate, a political ploy that nonetheless backfired? Beyond this, we need a serious rethink of our democracy, a scandal in its own right.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com [2] and Robert.Buddan@uwimona. edu.jm.