Beyond Golding

Colin Palmer, Contributor

"But let me make one thing clear," Prime Minister Bruce Golding recently said, "they could issue statements until ... and the columnists write their columns and editors write their editorials. I am not allowing anything to distract me anymore from the work that I will have to do." This comment by the head of Government represents an unacceptably contemp-tuous attitude toward the press in a democracy, and an equally unaccep-table suggestion that the press is trying to distract him from his crime-fighting initiatives.

Mr Golding's contempt for the opinions expressed by the Fourth Estate and, by extrapolation, the sentiments of the public, stands in strong contrast to Norman Manley's deference to and respect for the centrality of the public's voice in the democracy he was helping to call into being a half century ago.

I make this observation at the outset because countries that embrace the Westminster system of government are guided in their modus operandi, not only by their constitutions, but also by their uncodified conventions, precedents and practices over time. Norman Manley, more than any other Jamaican leader of his time, had a long view of history, and recognised the importance of nurturing the democratic institutions of the nation in formation, understanding that the people's voice lubricated and nourished them and their votes gave tangible expression to their political positions.

Importance of the people

When Alexander Bustamante refused to contest the by-election in St Thomas for the federal parliament in 1961, Norman Manley wanted the people, not the politicians, to decide whether the island would remain a member of the West Indies Federation. His respect for the judgment of the people led him to call a referendum on the federal question. Unfortunately, the ensuing election campaign was animated less by the merits of Jamaica's continuing in the federation, and more by domestic political imperatives. In the aftermath of his defeat, Premier Manley pledged to negotiate the islands' withdrawal from the federal union, and to begin to lay the groundwork for its independence.

Although he was not required to do so, Manley also pledged to call new elections so that the people could select the party that would form the first independent government. Many members of the People's National Party were not enamoured of such constitutional niceties and opposed the premier's decision. But it was the right one; it transcended narrow partisan politics and represented a commendable act of statesmanship. The new nation Manley imagined would be guided by the highest principles, grounded in the Westminster model. Manley lost the election and the opportunity to become the nation's first prime minister, but he had given his country a fine start.

Manley's principled conduct in the two aforementioned examples can be compared with the current ignoble behaviour of Prime Minister Golding and the leaders of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). Eschewing the accepted principles that are at the core of the Westminster model, the JLP members of the Senate acted with indecent haste in expressing their support for the prime minister after he mislead Parliament and the country about his role in the Manatt, Phelps & Phillips affair. The party's hierarchy compounded the problem by rejecting his offer to resign.

No-confidence motion

The defeat of the no-confidence motion in the lower house was a political charade, lacking credibility, but harmful to the fibre of the country's fledgling democracy over the long haul. Taken together, these vacuous exercises constituted classic examples of the triumph of political expedience over principled conduct in the nation's interest. Setting unholy precedents for the nation's constitu-tional future, these travesties are enshrining in Jamaica's zeitgeist and political DNA, the principle that a prime minister can deliberately mislead the nation and its represen-tatives in Parliament with impunity.

Future prime ministers who misbehave can invoke Golding's conduct as a precedent, apologise, and remain in office. History will not absolve Mr Golding and his party for their failure to recognise the larger constitutional consequences of their behaviour. They are going to be remembered for discrediting the nation's political principles, and using partisan majorities in parliament to ratify and legitimise bad behaviour. The only official who has emerged from this imbroglio with some integrity is Dr Ronald Robinson, who has resigned, seemingly for his secondary role in it. The country should continue to demand that Mr Golding, the attorney general and minister of justice resign.

The prime minister's belated aggressive assaults on the perpetrators of crime must not be allowed to obscure the larger constitutional implications of his remaining as head of Government. Some persons maintain that Golding's resignation could disrupt the fight against crime. But the prime minister's credibility has been so severely crippled that he can hardly be reinvented as the apostle of probity. The spectre of Christopher Coke will always be seen behind him.