Everrude's gift

Enough already about Everrude Warmington! I know! He behaved like a crass cretin to Kerlyn Brown. I know! He behaved worse to Garfield Burford. I know! He's refused to offer any real amends. I know!

So? Do we forever focus on the cancerous sore that's his behaviour? Do we generate enough heat and light to power a million Cuban light bulbs to tar and feather Everrude the Unready and run his shameful behind out of town on a rail? Shall we respond to crudity with equally unsophisticated suggestions seeking simplistic vengeance? Oughtn't we to try curing the disease causing the sore? Isn't this apparent adversity really a golden gift?

Insensitive Everrude is getting too much attention. Why do we care if he's elected? What exactly has he done to disqualify himself from a Parliament filled with similarly uncouth colleagues? Yes, he was rude to Kerlyn. I'm sure Kerlyn, a big girl, has encountered rudeness before. Her reaction on the spot seemed to confirm that. But, have you ever witnessed your MPs in action? Are you really surprised? Honestly? Should immature Everrude be singled out?

So, Everrude acted offensively. However, here are some of the things he hasn't done. He hasn't admitted any association with gunmen. He hasn't built any garrisons. He hasn't sanctioned any initiatives to hire foreign lobbyists at US$400,000 per annum who then effectively try thwarting the requested extradition of an alleged drug trafficker and gunrunner. Most important, ill-mannered Everrude didn't formulate a strategy for unlawfully elected MPs to stand firm at all cost, including possible perjury, until political convenience dictated otherwise.

None of those things can be blamed on Everrude. Like soldiers of another era who herded Jews, blacks and homosexuals into concentration camps and gas chambers, he's just a political soldier following orders. Unlike those soldiers, who were at least accomplices to genocide, Everrude has committed no crime against humanity. But Everrude's orders came from within a system of government, based on a written constitution, making the strategy he helped implement unconstitutional. The strategy, as devised, resulted in our constitutional requirements being thwarted. Yet, the traditional behaviour of our political institutions has conspired to permit his implementation of this unconstitutional tactic with impunity. And his victims, after being herdedinto polling stations, enthusiastically contribute to the mayhem by performing political suicide.

crux of the problem

Our Government's executive branch contains only partisan politicians elected on false promises to represent constituents. That pretence is exposed when they end up in Cabinet crafting policy negatively affecting those constituents without a dissenting murmur from so-called parliamentary 'representatives' who then pass laws rubber-stamping their own policies. If we break these laws, we face serious consequences. However, they flout the law without recrimination. They legislate their own proposed imposition of taxes on us while exempting themselves. They, who promised to represent us against oppressive government, instead become government. They are the law; the power; and the glory. Forever and ever.

It's in this context that unprepared Everrude blew a gasket at the suggestion that his behaviour was 'unethical'. Why? How could this be? He simply followed the leader? Has the leader resigned? Why should Everrude not rejoin him in Gordon House, that bastion of misconduct and immorality? Surely, he belongs as much as anybody?

Was Women in Media wrong to seek Everrude's disqualification? 'Wrong' is rarely an appropriate word. I prefer 'misguided'. To expect the conceptualiser to punish Everrude for implementing the concept was always a non-starter. A more constructive reaction would've been to nominate Everrude's vulgarity as the catalyst for fundamental change to the unethical system that produces these incongruities.

It's time to insist on governmental checks and balances. For starters, the legislature, the putative watchdog over the executive, oughtn't to be running the country. There should be a separate election for the nation's leader. If I suggested to PNP or JLP delegates that they vote for a Standing/Executive Committee, then permit that committee to appoint the party leader, I'd need protection. But both parties want Jamaican citizens to have their national leader imposed on them in exactly that autocratic manner. We should also be allowed to elect senators (currently demanding to be paid by us) and MPs themselves should be subject to possible midterm recall.

Regarding Everrude himself? We're making him more important than he is. Until he offers sincere amends and seeks personal help, send him to political hell. Ban him from any media coverage. Stop all interviews.

Learn from Kerlyn. Want to punish a politician? Ignore him.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.