Kristen Gyles | Put down political sensitivity

Last week’s article looked at how ‘poppy show’ politics is sometimes utilised by our political parties to get easily excitable Jamaicans to vote for them. Of note, was Vybz Kartel’s appearance on the People’s National Party’s (PNP’s) 86th annual conference stage last week.

In response to the column, someone emailed me to ask “How about sitting on top of a vehicle lifting your foot showing off Clarks? Isn’t that also poppy show?”. The person then urged me to be fair. The individual seemed to reason that having cited an example of ‘poppy show’ politics by the PNP, I needed to do the same for the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Otherwise, I wasn’t being fair.

It is nothing but colour blindness (specifically the ability to see only orange or green) that makes it impossible for some Jamaicans to countenance any wrongdoing or indiscretion committed by the political party they support without deflecting to some other misdeed committed at some point in the past by the other political party. In other words, they are suffering from a chronic case of what some now call ‘whataboutism’ or in this case, ‘howaboutism’.

When in contact with sufferers of this mentally debilitating illness, a Jamaican may complain that the government needs to strengthen its approach to stamping out corruption only to get the response “What about the Trafigura scandal???” or “What about the light bulb scandal???”. If the JLP is the subject of the criticism, and the sufferer happens to be a PNP affiliate, the question will be “What about Petrojam???” or “What about the CMU scandal???”.

IT’S JUST WRONG

If something is wrong, it’s just wrong, isn’t it? Does raising past misdeeds reduce the wrongness of recent misdeeds? This obsession with finger-pointing creates a serious communication barrier because people do not always have the time to discuss matching examples of impropriety across both sides of the political divide, just to cater to the political sensitivity of others.

Unfortunately, many politicians play into this sensitivity and help to fuel it. Many Jamaican politicians have a spoilt habit of making every observation, criticism or suggestion out to be either a personal or political attack, and of course, their followers and affiliates are often happy to join them in making such assumptions.

For example, the government’s months-long contention with the Integrity Commission (IC) has become very concerning. A trend has developed where members of the current government administration and their sympathisers seem to delight in finding fault with every action the IC takes, even where said actions pose no issue. The government has made a habit of consistently criticising the work of the IC, unnecessarily calling into question its authority and making backhanded statements to suggest that it is politically aligned. Since when has it become politically aligned? Since it started questioning the actions of key government personnel?

Take, for example, the recent submission to parliament by the IC of a report on its investigation into the prime minister’s statutory declarations for the years 2019 to 2022 along with its ruling on the matter. The report outlined that in 2022 the PM’s statutory declaration for 2021 was referred to the IC’s Director of Investigation out of concern that the declaration was incomplete. Upon resubmission of the 2021 statutory declaration by the PM and the consequent examination by the Director of Information and Complaints, concerns arose regarding disproportionality between the PM’s assets and his lawful earnings.

UNABLE TO DRAW CONCLUSION

The report stated that the IC’s Director of Investigation was unable to draw a conclusion regarding illicit enrichment due to an inability to access a schedule of the PM’s personal expenses over the period and “due to unresolved questions concerning the operations of companies with which Mr Holness is connected”. The IC wants to refer the matter to the FID and to the TAJ, presumably since the IC is not known to have the expertise or remit to delve into tax-related matters or to investigate fraud.

The average Jamaican seems to understand this, but members of the Government somehow cannot.

In the PM’s personal statement on the IC’s findings he says “While I will not pursue the view that this was politicised, I believe it is commonly agreed that the law governing the IC is in urgent need of revision. The current context of its operation does weaken its credibility, and we must do everything to ensure that the appropriate laws are in place to prevent the politicisation of the Commission.”

Where did the issue of the politicisation of the IC come from? In one breath, the PM will not pursue the view that the IC is politicised but, in another breath, he raises a concern about the potential politicisation of the IC for the average Jamaican to read and be influenced by.

One member of his administration, who sits on the Integrity Commission Oversight Committee, seemed to accuse the Integrity Commission of making prejudicial statements in its report on the prime minister’s statutory declaration and went as far as to ask whether the matter represented a case of ‘malicious prosecution’.

Such utterances do not help to foster a sense of respect, among Jamaicans, for the IC and its work. No matter what position the individual holds, no government official is above scrutiny, and where the individual is innocent there is no need to put up a fight every time a query is made, or a concern raised regarding his/her actions.

The heightened sense of political sensitivity seems to be increasing because our politicians continue to fuel it. What they do not realise is that many voting Jamaicans are unimpressed by what comes across as attempts to intimidate and strong-arm the IC, whose sole stated purpose is to combat corruption.

Kristen Gyles is a free-thinking public affairs opinionator. Send feedback to kristengyles@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com.