Kristen Gyles | A higher standard starts with us

Last month at a People’s National Party (PNP) press conference, a few of the party’s women protested the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP’s) reacceptance of George Wright, three years after a video surfaced of a man and a woman, alleged to be Wright and his common-law wife, in an altercation in which the man appeared to be punching the woman and beating her with a stool.

Wright was then and still is the member of parliament (MP) for Westmoreland Central. Although he never admitted to being the man in the video, he resigned from the JLP shortly after the video surfaced, becoming an independent MP. Wright and his partner have since tied the knot and are now married.

Now, with the impending general election being no more than six months away, the JLP has welcomed him back into the party, with open arms.

I listened to the impassioned criticisms made during the press conference against the JLP’s female MPs and senators for standing silently amid what was described as the normalisation of gender-based violence. One speaker at the press conference went as far as to say that the PNP was fighting for the woman who was seen being beaten by Wright with a chair. I wondered how many people really care about this. Does even the poor, battered woman in the video really care about this?

RAISING THE ISSUE

Was this group of women raising this as an issue of concern held by the average Jamaican or were they trying to raise concern within the average Jamaican about this issue? On the World Bank’s website, a July 26, 2023 infographic makes the claim that “Gender-based violence remains pervasive in Jamaica, with four in ten women experiencing some form of intimate partner violence.” So, when we protest the beating of a woman with a stool by an MP, is it the beating that we are protesting or the idea that an MP could be the one doing the beating?

If we were so horrified by gender-based violence as a society we wouldn’t engage in it so pervasively and we wouldn’t support the perpetrators of it when they are our brothers, sons, cousins and friends. But we do.

It raises a broader question of why we set such low moral standards for ourselves yet such high standards for our leaders. Are they better than us? If not, why can’t we ever hold ourselves to the same standard that we hold them to?

This article is not about George Wright or about gender-based violence. We reflect through our own actions from day to day what type of behaviours we are willing to excuse. Our politicians keep breaching trust because they are really hoping that we will, as we often do, excuse their bad behaviour because we routinely engage in similar bad behaviours. Sometimes all that distinguishes the bad behaviour of some of the worst politicians from our own bad behaviour is the visibility that comes with being a politician.

We also seem to be fixated on the big things but comfortably ignore the so-called little things. So, if $3 trillion goes missing over 11 years we are ready to make placards and block roads in protest of corruption and misuse of public funds. But were we to borrow $1,000 from our coworker only for them to forget about it, we have no problem pocketing the money and keeping our mouths shut. Theft is theft, whether big or small. And a ‘small money’ thief can most assuredly become a ‘big money’ thief.

CLAIM OVERTIME

Amid the Petrojam scandal a few years ago, when news broke that the board chairman had been reimbursed for airline tickets he said he bought to attend a work trip that actually ended before the travel date of the tickets, we rightly criticised what appeared to be the dishonest exploitation of the company’s reimbursement system. Notwithstanding, if some of us work 25 minutes overtime, we are willing to claim for an hour’s worth of overtime pay.

Look at the way we speak to each other. Just the other day, a high school principal and his board chairman got caught up in a hot exchange on school grounds in front of staff and students. The type of ‘tracing’ caught on camera did not differ significantly from what has become commonplace in Gordon House. Why is it okay for us to lose our tempers and get hot with our colleagues, even using foul language, only to clutch at our pearls when it is done in parliament?

Recently, I spoke with someone who jokingly related how they saw an MP skip the supermarket line. Sure, this is nothing to applaud. But how many of us walk into the bank, see the long bank line and immediately start scanning the building for a familiar face hoping we can get some type of ‘express’ service? Why has it always been okay for us to curry favour with people who can pull strings on our behalf and force doors open for us while it has always been called corruption when politicians do it? Isn’t it interesting how we are disgusted by the very behaviours we engage in?

Yes, leaders have a responsibility to use their authority, power and influence ethically and judiciously. And yes, we should hold them accountable for their use of said authority, power and influence. But can we also hold ourselves accountable for the integrity we do not demonstrate in our everyday lives?

Our leaders take their cues from our behaviours. They feel emboldened to engage in slackness because we do it and they know we will excuse them for doing it too. If we want better from our leaders, we will first have to start doing better. We have to respect ourselves enough to raise the bar.

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