Editorial | No to crassness

The temptation is to ignore Everald Warmington, the Jamaica Labour Party politician and former minister.

His crassness and crudity are legendary and well baked-in to his political persona. And, mostly, his colleagues seemed terrified of facing his wrath, rather than offended, by his frequent displays of boorishness. Further, at over 70, it is also probably felt that Mr Warmington is too old, and too encrusted in his callousness, to entertain the possibility of reform.

Nonetheless, it is important that his misconduct and intemperances, such as happened on a political stage in Westmoreland on Sunday, do not go unchallenged. They must be called out. For even Everald Warmington, even if only for tactical reasons, may be convinced of the need to express regret.

The point is that crass behaviour should not be normalised in politics, or elsewhere in public life. And it is for that reason that this newspaper welcomes the move by Mr Warmington’s political leader, Prime Minister Andrew Holness, to (re)assert a political code of conduct of sorts for members of his party in the ongoing election campaign. As we previously recommended, the Opposition leader, Mark Golding, should formally do the same for the People’s National Party (PNP).

Mr Holness apparently acted because of the outcry against Mr Warmington. He must now go further by, as The Gleaner recommended last week, having Parliament urgently pass legislation to reinstate an independent, stand-alone Political Ombudsman, reversing last year’s collapse of that office into the Election Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), where the panel adjudicating political disputes and allegations of breaches of the Political Code of Conduct will include four politicians, two each for the PNP and the JLP.

RARE MOVE

On Sunday, Mr Warmington spoke at a campaign rally for Westmoreland Central MP, George Wright, who was recently officially readmitted to the JLP, from which he supposedly resigned in 2021 over an incident in which a man was captured in a video beating a woman with a stool. Mr Wright never denied he was that person. In his expletive-riddled speech, Mr Warmington urged JLP supporters to vote for Mr Wright, regardless.

Controversies are not new, or few, to Everald Warmington – from his ‘flipping the bird’ to business leaders, cursing journalists, racist imputations against the Opposition leader, who is white, to threatening to withhold resources from Opposition local government councillors. He lost his Cabinet post over the latter.

In a rare move, perhaps because of the imminent election, Mr Warmington apologised for Sunday’s remarks, rather than double down.

Without specifically mentioning Mr Warmington or his latest indiscretion, Prime Minister Holness issued a letter to his party’s candidates, urging them to behave with respect, honouring the achievements of the JLP, and as the party for which Jamaicans will want to vote.

Wrote Dr Holness: “ Conduct and statements which suggest or promote discrimination, violence, racism, misogyny, bigotry, objectification, or any form of vulgarity must not be part of our platform. Such conduct is not who we are or aspire to be as a people and a political organisation.”

Mr Golding’s race has been frequently alluded to in the campaign.

POLITICAL OMBUDSMAN’S ROLE

It is not known if Mr Warmington’s Westmoreland speech has been reported to the ECJ in its role as political ombudsman, or whether, on its own accord, it has opened an investigation into the matter. In either case, one of the persons who would have to pronounce on the matter is the PNP’s general secretary, Dayton Campbell, who has been urging the police to file a criminal complaint against Mr Warmington for the use of indecent language. Dr Campbell is a commissioner of the ECJ.

The Warmington matter, and Dr Campbell’s potential role therein, again highlights the absurdity of the decision to subsume to the ECJ. Civic organisations, including the election monitoring group, Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE), had warned against this.

The political ombudsman policed the code of conduct which holds political parties to behaviour that doesn’t provoke tensions or incite violence. While the ombudsman couldn’t enforce sanctions for breaches of the code, its statements of blame and condemnation carried the weight of shame and moral authority.

Until now, the ECJ has dealt with the technical aspects of preparing for and managing elections, rather than the ethical and moral questions of campaigning that concerned the political ombudsman. Moreover, while the ECJ has a majority of ‘independent’ members, its composition, including political party appointees, will likely make its determination of allegations of breaches of the Political Code of Conduct especially contentious.

It was a bad idea to abandon the stand-alone political ombudsman. It is not too late for the decision to be reversed in time for election, as we have previously shown. The window for action, though, grows narrower.