Orville Taylor | Boycotts and conflicts of interest
Politicians do politics; and everything that went on last week, between the government and Opposition parliamentarians, is sheer political one-upmanship. Caution to both. Just remember that 71 per cent of the electorate does not give a cough for the mucus each is spewing. True, the stakes are high given the results of the local government elections. However, looking towards a stiff election, when a major trophy is at stake, one must not go for cups.
Let me make this clear. The Jamaican people did not elect 63 people to walk out on us because their feelings are hurt. Therefore, as I said about the abandonment of the electorate in 1983, because then Prime Minister Edward Seaga called a snap election, vacating the House of Representatives is never an option I support.
Thankfully, good sense prevailed and Leader of Opposition Mark Golding decided not to play tit for tat after the government members walked out due to critical comments made by him regarding the status of Speaker of the House Juliet Holness.
In a blindside jab, Golding declared, “The head of Parliament is now the spouse of the head of Government. This really does not sit well with the tradition that the Speaker must act independently of the government of the day.” Moreover, “The Speaker is intended to be independent and must act independent of the government of the day.”
On the face of it, there is nothing wrong with the declaration. Indeed, it is simply good governance. However, Holness was appointed Deputy Speaker years ago, and were her appointment subject to the normal guidelines from industrial relations practice or labour law, she has long completed her 90 days of probation.
In retort, with statements that bely the intelligence of the government spokespersons, there is a strange assertion that the comments are misogynistic. Of course, that is nonsense; because, nothing in Golding’s comments demonstrated ‘feeling, showing, or characterised by hatred of or prejudice against women’.
SEXISM CLAIMS
For good reference, the sexism claims never surfaced when former Speaker Marisa Dalrymple Philibert faced multiple attacks over her handling of matters relating to clear conflicts of interest.
And the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) absolutely knows that it is not an attack on women. Doubtless, it is a jugular targeting of the prime minister’s wife obviously. Just recognise that despite external pressure, only women can be wives of men in Jamaica.
Notwithstanding the discomfort the prime minister, in particular, must feel as Golding raked coals over his wife, I defend the right of any member of the Opposition to criticise her based on her (non) performance, as long as it is not a case of lies being told. This is the essence of our democracy.
Yet, using an analogy from spousal relations, a wife is hypocritical if she uttered no disagreement when her husband declared that he was going to have drinks with the boys, then expresses surprise that he was chatting to people she didn’t approve of or came home with the smell of stale alcohol on his breath.
In some cases, one only gets one bite at the cherry. From day one, the appointment of Juliet as Deputy Speaker was a bad idea. A deputy fulfils the duties of Speaker whenever the incumbent is absent. Therefore, as deputy, all that was needed would be for the then Speaker to be conveniently absent on one particular sitting, when the deputy could then guide a process in a direction advantageous to her spouse.
MUTTERED DISCLAIMER
No one in the Opposition or the People’s National Party (PNP) blinked, much less choked. Rewind to Holness’ elevation after the departure of Dalrymple Philibert. Our leader of opposition business and leader of Opposition are both very senior attorneys. They both understand the principles of natural justice, conflict of interest and the entire body of ethics surrounding fair treatment, especially when it comes to public resources. At a minimum, the learned counsels should have muttered a disclaimer, recognising the risk with the unusual arrangement.
There is no way, under any circumstance, that anyone should have felt any level of comfort with Juliet’s appointment as deputy or as Speaker in the first place. And note here! This has nothing to do with her intelligence or competence. As a matter of fact, among the politicians I have taught, academics who have been in my classes and public officials whom I have mentored or supervised, young Juliet Landell is one of the brightest ever. Moreover, there is at least one high-achieving male former student, whom she is both brighter and more truthful than.
The issue is, however, that principles of good governance and natural justice require that at all times ‘conflicts of interest’ must be avoided. These fall into three categories; actual, potential and perceived.
Not limited to the following, conflict can arise from being related by blood or other body fluids, having had an extant dispute or clash with an adjudicator or being in a position to benefit from one’s own decisions.
Typically, close family members are not placed in decision-making portfolios. Thus, on the plantation, UWI, Mona, all committees have to declare even the slightest issue. For example, one cannot preside over an examination or set a paper of one’s relative or paramour.
True, there are a number of instances where persons in power have acted with impunity. However, the Government should take a deep look at the UWI’s ethical guidelines as an exemplar.
Let us be realistic, Andrew Holness will not be prime minister for the rest of his life. However, he will be the father of Juliet’s children and likely her husband ‘til death do them part. If there is a conflict of interest, the bedroom is far more comfortable than the benches of Parliament or the canine residence in his backyard.
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
