Editorial | Mandate IC code for candidates

People sign voluntary pledges all the time and for myriad reasons don’t abide by them.

That is neither an indictment against codes of conduct, nor a good reason for the failure, so far, of Prime Minister Andrew Holness and his cabinet, and most of the Opposition’s spokespersons council to sign the Integrity Commission’s (IC) pledge against corruption and in support of good governance, nearly half a year since it was proposed.

Statements about being personally unaware of, or not seeing the document don’t cut it, and can only deepen cynicism and further erode the low levels of trust Jamaicans repose in politicians and institutions of the State. Upwards of seven in 10 adults already believe they live in a corrupt country.

Against this backdrop, Mr Holness should explain the reason for his delay in endorsing the code, including whether the stance is based either on legal and/or philosophical concerns.

Additionally, having himself signed the pledge, and placed his imprimatur on the document, Mark Golding, the Opposition leader, needs more substantive reasons for why the bulk of his shadow administration, only 26 per cent or six out 23 have signed, haven’t put their signature to the code. The lukewarm response and Mr Golding’s promise to send reminders to the members indicate that signing was optional, and raises questions about the leader’s authority.

DUE DILIGENCE

In fact, signing the IC’s document should be among the prerequisites, and part of the integrity due diligence of candidates seeking to contest elections on behalf of registered political parties. That rule that would be imposed by the parties themselves.

The Integrity Commission’s code of, or Leadership Commitment Document, was a follow-on to a series of anti-corruption workshops the agency held with the Holness cabinet and Mr Golding and his shadow team, between 2020 and 2022. The document’s so-called Seven Principles of Public Life largely mirror guidelines in a 2002 ministerial code of conduct for members of the then P.J. Patterson government. That document was tabled in Parliament as a ministry paper.

The Integrity Commission’s version was to Messrs Holness and Golding in November, recommending that they sign it on behalf of their respective teams as part of an effort to “promote adherence to the highest standard of good governance and integrity on the part of those who discharge public functions and duties in Jamaica”.

Mr Golding eventually signed the document in January, after outside urgings, including by this newspaper, for the leaders to do so.

However, Mr Holness, the IC confirmed last week, hasn’t responded to its November invitation for he and his team to formally commit to the code. The prime minister hasn’t said why.

Robert Morgan, the information minister, implied at a recent briefing that Mr Holness, to whom the IC forwarded the code, hasn’t placed the document on the agenda in the highest reaches of the administration or of the governing Jamaica Labour Party.

UNABLE TO COMMENT

“No code of conduct has been presented to me to sign,” he told journalists, “I am pretty much unable to comment on a code of conduct that I have never seen or had any discussion with anyone about.”

Perhaps recent contretemps between the administration and the Integrity Commission over the handling of a report on whether Prime Minister Holness influenced the award of contracts to a friend and business partner (Mr Holness was found not to have broken any law) might be influencing attitudes towards the commission.

However, that dispute and the signing of the code of conduct are different issues. And there are good reasons, beyond symbolism, why public officials should sign the document.

Codes of conduct, such as the one crafted by the IC, signal a commitment by those with power and in control of the State’s resources that they won’t succumb to the temptations of corruption. This is relevant.

Indeed, most studies show that over four in 10 Jamaicans believe that most or all politicians are corrupt; nearly a half don’t trust the police, over a fifth hold similar views of the judiciary. Further, last year’s view of democracy in the Americas by Vanderbilt University’s LAPOP research laboratory found that 46 per cent of Jamaicans would tolerate a military, if its aim was to defeat corruption.

Dithering on the code will only deepen the distrust.