Peter Espeut | Justice, truth be ours forever

“In war, truth is the first casualty.”

– Aeschylus (525-455 BC)

It is discouraging that in this supposedly Christian country, with (allegedly) the most church buildings per square mile in the world, the received wisdom is that political corruption is not an important issue for voters in the general election scheduled for next Wednesday, September 3. Basically, this claims that we Jamaicans are not committed to make justice and truth be ours forever, as we sing in our National Anthem.

I do not believe that this is true of most of us Jamaicans. I believe that the perception of corruption has been driving voting behaviour in Jamaica for decades.

As I have written many times before, neither of our two main political parties has clean hands, and persons with a high moral sense may declare “a pox on both their houses” and stay away from voting booths. Some people call this apathy; others regard it as the inevitable result of a sensitive conscience.

In my view, the decline in voter turnout over the years is a vote against political corruption by people with sensitive consciences, and a vote for justice and truth. Those who wish an increase in electoral participation must put forward a rationale that will appeal to persons with sensitive consciences.

Persons involved in corruption and those who benefit from bribery, graft, nepotism, cronyism, and influence peddling, tax breaks, waivers and government contracts, rarely respond to moral arguments, and laugh at anti-corruption campaigners. They actively vote for their brand of corruption, and against efforts at transparency and accountability. It is not them that I address in this column; they laugh at people like me, and treat us with disdain and contempt. I wish to address those with sensitive consciences who stay away from polling stations on election day.

WHERE WILL THAT LEAVE US?

If good people stay away on election day, they will leave the decision on who rules us to the ungodly. Where will that leave us?

Some moral decisions are complex. In real life, very few moral choices are between good and evil pure and simple – between black and white, between darkness and light. In real life there is a broad spectrum of grey, requiring skills in moral decision-making to chart the ethical way forward. It is never justified to actively choose evil, but it is permissible to reject evil; and therefore one can in good conscience, choose the “lesser of two evils”, i.e. reject the greater evil.

This then boils down to discerning which evil is greater than which. Some people have a hard time with that kind of moral choice; sin is sin, and evil is evil, they argue. Students in our schools are not trained in this kind of ethical decision-making; as adults they may make the moral choice to just stay home rather than vote for one of the evils.

Both main parties lie, but who tells the most lies? And the biggest lies? Election campaigns may be modern battlefields, and as the ancient Greek philosopher Aeschylus warns us, “In war, truth is the first casualty”.

Remember, there are two kinds of lies: downright false statements and false claims; and then there are the omissions, the failure to tell the whole truth. “We are on the road to republic”, they say; but what they do not say is that in this republic the prime minister rules like a monarch, and the opposition will be marginalized. This attempt at a constitutional dictatorship is dangerous, and deeply evil; people with sensitive consciences should vote against the party trying this power grab.

INDIRECT TAXATION

“We are for the poor”, they will say; but then they support a shift from direct taxation to indirect taxation (JIS press release March 22, 2018).

Remember the famous “1.5”? Effective April 1, 2017, the personal income tax threshold for Jamaicans was increased from $1 million to $1.5 million. The lowest PAYE workers paid less income tax (a form of direct taxation), which of course, led to a massive loss of revenue for the government. How did the government make up for the shortfall? With new taxes, or course! There were many basic food items used by the poor which up to that time did not attract GCT (a form of indirect taxation). To recover lost tax revenue, the government switched from direct to indirect taxation: they raised the income tax threshold, but then they put GCT on basic food items. The lowest PAYE workers paid less taxes, at the expense of the very poor who paid more taxes. “We are for the poor”, the government says.

It used to be in Jamaica that those who earned more, paid taxes at a higher rate. Now Jamaica has a flat tax (introduced by a previous JLP government), which means that the wealthy pay proportionately less taxes, while the poor pay proportionately more. “We are for the poor”, the government says.

The examples can be multiplied.

For many, elections in Jamaica are an exercise in “voting against” rather than “voting for” incumbent parties. There was wisdom in the so-called “two-term syndrome”, not allowing any party to become so entrenched, with their snouts in the political feeding trough, for too long.

The majority of Jamaicans are not party hacks and tribalists; that political class has been in decline for some time. It is sad that Jamaican voters have such limited choices before us. We are forced to “vote against” rather than to “vote for”; but that’s real life.

Let us take our consciences with us next Wednesday as we go to cast our ballots.

The Rev. Peter Espeut is Dean of Studies at St. Michael’s Theological College. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com