EDITORIAL: When Miss Havisham meets the gangs of Gordon House

Miss Havisham never saw her deathly pallor, or how deeply her eyes had sunk into her skeletal frame. Nor did she see, as others had, the slow decay and ruin of Satis House, or notice the rot of her uneaten wedding cake.

But unlike some in contemporary Jamaica, who are afraid to notice and acknowledge the ruin, for the tragic Dickensian character, this attempt at halting time and shutting out reality was a reminder of personal hurt and humiliation on a vicarious route to revenge.

Miss Havisham's redemption, of sorts, came after she had been forced to confront herself, by which time she had caused much pain to others, not least of whom was Pip.

We, of course, believe that persons such as Justice Seymour Panton, Dr Hopeton Dunn and Mr John Junor would have read Great Expectations and wondered why someone, a servant even, hadn't just told Miss Havisham the truth, rather than awaiting the tragedy of a fire.

But telling the truth, if it is uncomfortable, can be difficult, especially to people of wealth, like Miss Havisham, or of power and influence, like the gangs of Gordon House - the political parties that have alternated in government in Jamaica for more than half a century. For telling the truth sometimes forces us to acknowledge the dysfunctionality of our existence, which has long been the case with politics in Jamaica and the organisations through which it is mostly practised, the governing Jamaica Labour Party and the People's National Party (PNP).

Calling a spade a spade

The parties have largely operated like gangs, closed institutions pursuing the narrow interests and gains of their adherents, exhibiting a willingness to struggle in the extreme to gain and defend turf on behalf of the group. Spin-offs, good or bad - and given Jamaica's record of economic advance, mostly negative - are usually collateral effects.

It is these facts that this newspaper has, in recent weeks, aggressively highlighted, but which some persons view as disconcerting jolts to their comfort zones. They expose sluices of nastiness that ought not to be Westminster competition. Or, we pretend that the environment is not putrid while politely suggesting to the gangs that, perhaps, it just might make sense that they change their ways.

There are a number of things worth noting in this regard.

First, Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, the leader of the PNP, must be told that the parties are not labelled gangs only because of the language their members sometimes use to each other, but because of the culture they spawned.

If Mr Junor, who used to be in the thick of the PNP, thinks of it, the public, for the most part, is not offended by the label because it has the evidence of long observance of the gangs to appreciate the validity of the categorisation.

Mr Panton knows that justice is often tough, requiring the Bench, however empathetic, sometimes to eschew sympathy, speak in harsh, frank tones and impose punishment to the full extent of the law.

Dr Dunn is sufficiently a student of political history to be aware that sometimes systems and processes have to be forced to confront themselves, like Ronald Reagan's characterisation of the Soviet Union as an "evil empire" and challenging Mr Gorbachev in Berlin "to tear down that wall".

Until the gangs reach rock bottom and are ready to reform themselves, we take seriously our responsibility to hold them to account, and we welcome the emerging debate on the matter.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.