Editorial | Dr Campbell’s route to redemption

If Dayton Campbell, the general secretary of the People’s National Party (PNP), is genuinely in search of redemption, he has to be open and honest in his quest, and prove that he is deserving of forgiveness. This is not a process that can be outsourced, or caused to happen by osmosis or presumption.

That is why this newspaper believes that Dr Campbell needs to do more than be a seemingly passive observer while Donna Parchment Brown, the political ombudsman, claims him to be remorseful for his puerile and potentially ethnically divisive claim that Bobby Montague was the leader of the “black section” of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Indeed, Mrs Parchment Brown should have none of it if, in fact, Dr Campbell agreed that he breached the political code of conduct.

Should Dr Campbell feel he did nothing wrong, and has nothing to apologise for, the appropriate thing to do is to stand his ground and say why, rather than engage in a kind of back-door proxy acquiescence, hoping for the dissipation of political heat. That is neither mature, moral nor accountable.

As this newspaper noted recently, Dr Campbell entered the political arena over a decade ago as an attractive candidate from whom much was expected – a seeming role model for Jamaican at-risk young men. He had risen from single parenthood and poverty to earn a medical degree, and had his eyes set on a qualification in law. Mission accomplished!

Unfortunately, Dr Campbell seemed to reside in his head – a space which harboured too many apparitions. It burdened him with a cloudy political judgement and an overripe tongue. We forgave thoughtless misstatements as youthful exuberance. Hopefully, age, high office, and recently, unsubstantiated allegations of personal misconduct, would hasten maturity.

FOOT IN MOUTH

But last month, at his party’s press conference to address Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ tepid reshuffling of his Cabinet, Dr Campbell did it again. His foot found its way into his mouth, distracting from the message of his party president, Mark Golding.

In arguing why the JLP’s chairman and former transport and mining minister was not chucked out of the Cabinet, rather than being assigned a new portfolio, Dr Campbell declared, without evidence, that it was because Mr Montague was the leader of the “black section” of the JLP. The implication was that the JLP is driven along ethnic lines. A Cabinet position for Mr Montague, therefore, was appeasement for his cadre of supporters – the blacks. The logical takeaway, or extension of that argument, is that the JLP’s de jure leader, Mr Holness, the prime minister of an overwhelmingly black country, leads a section of his party that is primarily non-black.

This paper appreciates that competing ideological tendencies and philosophical strands often exist in political movements, even when they adhere to the same overarching ideals. We understand, too, that class and colour, and how they impact privilege, remain unresolved issues in the Jamaican society. These are matters worthy of serious intellectual discourse, rather than snide, puerile swipes that might turn into volatile and politically partisan rancour. Or worse, it smacks of valueless political prurience.

The fact that Dr Campbell slipped on this one brings into question not only how sensitive he was to the matter’s larger sociopolitical context, but to the optics with respect to his own party. The PNP’s president, Mr Golding, is a patriotic white Jamaican who leads an organisation that used to be at the forefront of a nationalist movement. The old, nationalist class alliance on which it prided itself has long been in retreat.

HARM RELATIONS

On the immediate matter, it is not surprising that Mrs Parchment Brown considered Dr Campbell’s remarks as ones that could harm relations between the political parties and sow tensions between their supporters. Most people would be heartened by the ombudsman’s report suggesting that Dr Campbell got it. In explaining his statement, Dr Campbell indicated, according to the ombudsman, that he hadn’t intended to “cross the line of acceptable speech” in political discourse. This newspaper is clear: in the circumstance, he did.

In Mrs Parchment Brown’s telling, in a letter to the PNP general secretary recapping their conversation, Dr Campbell expressed “regret for the hurt and confusion caused and has withdrawn the offensive words”.

The fact that Dr Campbell has not denied Mrs Parchment Brown’s statement may be taken as prima facie evidence that she correctly reflected Dr Campbell’s sentiment. Nonetheless, that remains the ombudsman’s interpretation and her words, from which Dr Campbell could, at some point, resile.

If Dr Campbell genuinely regrets, and is sorry for, his remarks and truly believes he was wrong, he should apologise. In his own words – and fulsomely. He should ensure that there is no opportunity for anyone to claim that he sought refuge behind Mrs Parchment Brown’s frock.

Should Dr Campbell have difficulty fashioning an appropriate apology, he might elicit help from Floyd Green, the recently returned Cabinet minister. Mr Green’s mea culpa for breaching COVID-19 lockdown rules is a good template for errant politicians who regret their actions or deeds.