Looking for a leader in the Caribbean

By Robin Guittard:



It takes a strong leader to sit up and take notice when the tides of public opinion are turning.  Often the idea of real change can be concerning to politicians.  However, in Trinidad and Tobago people are crying out for their rights to be recognised, as a whole section of society suffers continued discrimination and abuse.  Will the leaders listen to their calls?

A few months ago, the country’s Commission in charge of the reform of the constitution pointed out “a high level of violence and abuse directed against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transsexual or intersex (LGBTI) people” in Trinidad and Tobago

But over the last couple of weeks something has changed, there is excitement in the air.  Perhaps the country is having its most mature debate since independence half a century ago.  The nation is discussing what place to give to those who doesn’t identify themselves as heterosexuals, those often called LGBTI.

The ground-swell of support has been palpable, and has come as a reaction to a mis-judged statement from Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar.

Last month, during an interview in New York, she ducked and dived when she was questioned about the“decriminalization of homosexuality” in the country.  She said that it isn’t something her government is seeking to do at the moment because “it’s too divided, there’s no consensus on that issue.” She then rapidly ended the discussion saying the question should be put before a national referendum.

Since then, a fierce debate has taken place. Many new voices have appeared to challenge the Prime Minister’s dismissal of her government’s obligations to protect the rights of LGBTI people.

The public debate has been bolstered by recent developments.

Recently UNAIDS, the United Nations agency in charge of the fight against HIV/AIDS, presented the results of a survey undertaken in Trinidad and Tobago.

An encouraging 78% of people interviewed said that “homosexuals should not be treated differently”, and 56% said that they themselves were tolerant towards LGBTI people.

Then, last week the country’s Equal Opportunity Commission announced that it will recommend including sexual orientation, age and HIV status in national legislation designed to protect citizens against discrimination.

Surely if the Prime Minister needs a green light to act on this issue, she has just received a strong message: the country is ready to move forward.

In fact, Kamla Persad-Bissessar herself has already shown she is open to change.  In 2012 she noted that “the stigmatisation of homosexuality in Trinidad and Tobago is a matter which must be addressed on the grounds of human rights and dignity to which every individual is entitled under international law.”  Amnesty International could not agree more.

However, while the prime minister can take strength from the outpouring of support and call for change, her suggestion of a referendum is not the surest way forward.  If the prime minister is serious about effecting progressive change she does not need to put the question to a referendum and risk a result that reinforces discrimination. She should instead promote legislation that would ensure that Trinidad and Tobago’s laws comply with its international obligations and implement appropriate awareness raising measures to combat society’s prejudices and discriminatory practices.

Above all, protection from discrimination is an internationally-binding obligation that has been voluntarily accepted by the Trinidadian state.  Over the years, UN experts have clarified that treaty provisions prohibiting discrimination implicitly proscribe discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.  It’s a responsibility which needs to be acted upon by the government, not something that’s optional.

Trinidad and Tobago has repeatedly proven to be a tolerant society.  Protection from discrimination is a key component amongst its diverse communities, the foundation on which the society has been built.

It’s exactly because of this strong track-record in tolerance that the prime minister’s inaction and excuses need to be challenged.  When so many people and institutions are voicing concerns that LGBTI Trinidadians are continuously facing discrimination, the Prime Minister can no longer ignore the issue.

To improve the human rights record in Trinidad and Tobago the country needs leadership.  Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar can be that leader and could truly make a mark on the country’s history and change the human rights environment for the better.

A national version was published on Monday in the Trinidad Express

October 24, 2014

Caribbean News Now

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church Part-1

Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society more than the church community? Part 1

By Dr Lazarus Castang:


Some commentaries on Caribbean News Now have consistently engaged in a common logical leap from universal human rights to men having sex with men. Homosex is often more implicitly than explicitly subsumed under the canopy of universal human rights. The need for sex or sexual satisfaction is universal, human, and a natural right. So, if this is the case, then no government, society, religion, culture, law, or morality should stigmatise or discriminate against adult males having private, consensual sex if it does not harm anyone. So the argument goes, but is the case really as simple and straightforward as this?

Caribbean society includes the homosexual community as well as the church community. From an objective, noncommittal perspective, for homosexuals to influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church or vice-versa constitutes an obvious bias in either direction. To try to divide and conquer by insisting that the church have sex however they want, and homosexuals have sex however they please, solves the problem on the individual level, but not on the collective/societal level.

Some active homosexuals want to be welcomed and affirmed in and by the church, and be celebrated when they come out in society. Some want to be married and hold position in church. Furthermore, they oppose any moral or legal discrimination against their homosexual behaviour by society or the church. In some countries they have or seek laws that criminalise public and Christian moral opposition to homosex, while they decriminalise homosex. They want homosexual behaviour to be upheld in school curriculum as a normal variant of human sexuality and insist on legislation to protect their right to homosex that is assumed to be universal and right.

Homosexuals have private homosex, but seek public recognition and acceptance of their relationships through several avenues like public parades and protests. Privacy is not what they seek, since they have it already. Publicity of their “privacy” that can psychosocially normalize homosex and break down public resistance is the goal. Homosexuals are trying to influence societal norms just like the church. So, to talk of the church as a homophobic or bigoted obstacle to sexual freedom is to try to exclude and mute the influence of the church as an important public moral voice in Caribbean society.

Furthermore, the concept of universal human rights, as some have related it to homosex, does not address how to resolve public conflict of rights in society and in what way homosex is universal and right. In any public conflict of rights, say right to conscience versus sexual orientation right, one right will be made fundamental and the other less than fundamental. Merely using accusatory terms like “disadvantaged groups,” “abuse of minority,” “exclusionary approach” and “tyranny” in context of homosexual cause and the Caribbean church and society only fly on broken wings of emotionalism and appeals to sympathy without good reason.

In certain parts of the US and Canada, opponents of homosex have been fined or imprisoned for publicly opposing homosex, but homosexuals are not fined or imprisoned for publicly berating the church. They call the church bigoted for disapproving and not accommodating homosex, while they reverse bigotry by disapproving and not accommodating opposition to homosex.

In the Caribbean, homosexuals have been physically threatened, or attacked, or killed because of their orientation and behavioural expression or public display or promotion of it. The church community, however, disapproves of both homosex and violence against homosexuals. But it is argued by some gay rights activists that opposition to homosex is a source of social homophobia. The case for such argument has not been made and even if it were true, then, attackers can also use any other reason to attack homosexuals, such as the way they walk, talk, dress, the places they go, or the company they keep, or coming out. With such questionable or farfetched reasoning not only opposition to homosex needs changing. The way some homosexuals walk, talk, dress, the places they go, or the company they keep, or coming out, all these would be sources of homophobia to be changed.

So, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church? After all, homosexuals’ bodies, butts, behaviours, brains, buggery, and bugs are theirs, not the church’s, even though some of them may belong to a church. The church should not talk for or over homosexuals, and homosexuals cannot control the church. Therefore, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

If homosex is exclusively a private matter, should it be publicly promoted in any form or fashion, or legally protected, or religiously accepted? Does the church have a right to tell homosexuals not to have homosex? Are laws or sermons against homosex codes for or reinforcements of violent attacks against homosexuals in the Caribbean? As analogies, do laws against incest, pedophilia, bestiality, polygamy, and drug trafficking mean attack the violators?

There is no link between believing homosex is wrong and acting to wrong homosexuals physically. Physical attackers of homosexuals can use any reason in an effort to justify their nefarious acts, while accusers of the church bypass them to wrongly assign blame to the church. There are unbalanced and uncompassionate people in the church community as well as the homosexual community. So, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex, if there is a right to sex, more than the Caribbean church?

If there is a right to sexual satisfaction, how far do we extend this right to sex and on what basis? A non-discriminatory claim for the recognition of a variety of sexual orientations would have to include orientations toward multiple sex partners (polysexuality), children (pedophilia), blood relatives (incest), animals (bestiality), sadomasochism, voyeurism, necrophilia and so on. Sexual libertinism would be the order of the day in the name of freedom, social inclusion, tolerance, equality and acceptance.

The separation of church and state does not eliminate the influence of the church on the society or the society on the church. The Caribbean church exists under the jurisdiction of the Caribbean state and in society. Religious and secular people, gay or straight, influence state decisions as members of political parties, government agencies, business enterprises and media corporations and as individual citizens. Efforts to remove church or homosexual influence from the Caribbean state/society are virtually impractical at the corporate level and the individual level. Therefore, one cannot legitimately talk of freedom and at the same time seek to totally erode dialogue, rivalry of influence, and jostling for legal advantage between the church and the homosexual community on the question of the right to sexual satisfaction in the Caribbean.

In a society with a multiplicity of sexual orientations, sexual laws cannot forbid any behavioural expression of sexual orientation and be non-discriminatory at the same time. However, Caribbean diverse society must draw the line somewhere, even when the line may only be drawn in the sand of social shifts and turns. Again, should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church?

September 09, 2014

Caribbeannewsnow

- Should homosexuals influence Caribbean society on the right to sex more than the Caribbean church Part-2 
 

Ending criminal defamation in the Caribbean

By Alison Bethel McKenzie

Executive Director
International Press Institute

Early this year, Dominican journalist Johnny Alberto Salazar was sentenced to six months in jail for slander and libel.  The charges stemmed from Salazar's on-air comments accusing Pedro Baldera, a local Human Rights Committee official, of "protecting delinquents and people linked to organised crime."  Salazar, an elected council member and well-known local gadfly, said prior to his arrest that he had been receiving threats from the government for his criticism of officials.

In June, the decision was thrown out by an appeals court.  But the effect of the prosecution remains.  Though the Dominican Republic retains a fairly clean press record, with Salazar potentially becoming the first ever journalist jailed for professional activities, the existence of criminal defamation laws leaves the threat of retribution forever looming.

As recently as June, Dominican politicians, and diplomats across the Caribbean, expressed their belief that defamation is best dealt with in a civil courtroom.  The International Press Institute (IPI) calls on these countries to take the next step and remove these latent laws from their books.

Criminal libel law was born in an Elizabethan England courtroom as a means for silencing critique of the privileged class.  A law of such antiquated ethos has little place in modern society where the press plays a pivotal role in shaping public discourse.

IPI is actively campaigning for the governments of the Caribbean to redress their current criminal libel laws.  At present, the law is vague and open to indiscriminate and inconsistent implementation, largely wielded to quell dissent and stifle government criticism.

In the past two years, Caribbean criminal defamation cases have included a government official charging a previous campaign opponent with the crime and another where accusations made in a town hall meeting resulted in a lawsuit.  These cases exemplify the elasticity of a law largely wielded by those in positions of power.

While infrequently used in the Caribbean, criminal libel statutes remain an unnecessary resource at the disposal of any offended official.  The mere threat of prosecution chills investigation and free speech, sustains corruption, unnecessarily protects public officials, and denies one of the most basic of human rights, freedom of expression.

Criminal libel is one of the most pernicious media constraints in contemporary society.  Implemented at the will of any insulted public official, it frequently leaves no recourse for the defendant.  In most countries, truth is not a valid defence, leaving defence a vexing proposition.

Many countries have no clear demarcation or standard for determining the line between fair criticism and criminal offence.  That most existing criminal libel laws also lack a requirement for actual malice, a higher criterion for the libel of public figures -- to allow for debate and discourse of government and other instruments of power -- only further underscores the capricious nature and implementation at the disposal of government figures.

IPI condemns modern use of criminal libel and advocates banishing the law, and utilising civil remedies as alternatives.  Often governments argue the need for strong punitive measures as a defence against scurrilous journalism, but freedom of expression and the press requires a more nuanced regulation in order to allow for public dialogue.  Certainly, punishment for careless or slanderous speech is necessary, but this should take place in a civil courtroom.

IPI stands beside numerous international accords, court opinions, and governments in these beliefs.  As early as 1948, the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights declared the significance of freedom of expression, with special note to press rights, by naming it one of the basic truths of humanity.

More recently, an international coalition comprised of members from the United Nations, the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the Organization of American States (OAS), and the African Commission on Human and Peoples' Rights (AFCHP) named the criminalisation of defamation as one of the ten biggest threats to the freedom of expression.

IPI has conducted press freedom missions in a number of Caribbean nations.  An IPI delegation visited Trinidad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar, Barbados Prime Minister Freundel Stuart, and government ministers and officials in both Jamaica and the Dominican Republic.  In each instance, IPI received support for its position on criminal libel, with each government reaffirming its commitment to an independent press.

In June 2012, the IPI General Assembly meeting in Port of Spain endorsed the Declaration of Port of Spain, calling for the abolition of "insult laws" and criminal defamation legislation in the Caribbean.  Stating that "the Caribbean urgently needs a strong, free and independent media to act as a watchdog over public institutions," the Declaration of Port of Spain identifies "the continued implementation of ‘insult laws’ – which outlaw criticism of politicians and those in authority and have as their motive the 'locking up of information' – and criminal defamation legislation as a prime threat to media freedom in the Caribbean."

IPI has received further endorsement for the Declaration of Port of Spain from numerous organisations throughout the Caribbean, including the Association of Caribbean Media Workers, and media and press associations in Jamaica, Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados, Grenada, Guyana, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Lucia, Suriname, and St Kitts and Nevis.

A free society is founded on an open exchange of opinions, popular or not.  Criminal libel does little more than stifle this public discourse.  We’ve evolved a great deal since the 16th century origin of criminal libel.  To continue to rely on an antiquated law that acts as little more than a tool of repression would signal a society uncertain of its democratic principles.  Many Caribbean countries have publicly repudiated criminal libel.  IPI calls on these governments to join in the progress of freedom of expression and recognise their existing criminal libel laws as archaic and detrimental, and to remove the law from their books.

Considerable work lies ahead in achieving this goal, but IPI is encouraged by the progress thus far.  With diligence and continued collaboration, IPI is confident the nations of the Caribbean will proceed in striking this relic of a bygone era from their records and take their rightful places as homes of truly free and independent press.

September 05, 2012

Caribbeannewsnow

Jamaica is suffering from a poverty of ideas ...and already it appears as if the new administration is ready to fall into the same ditch of intellectual and creative stagnation that characterised previous governments

The poverty of ideas and action

HEART TO HEART

With Betty Ann Blaine

Dear Reader,

For a country with some of the most brilliant minds one could find anywhere, I continue to be perplexed by the deficit of ideas, and worse yet, the lack of courage and conviction of those who are educated to challenge the status quo.

The recently concluded election campaign was an insult to the intelligence of any thinking person. It wasn't just that the platforms boiled down to a "tracing" match between the two main rivals about who was more corrupt than whom, it was also the complete lack of intellectual rigour commensurate with a society that has such a large class of educated people and a wide assortment of schools, colleges and universities.

The questions that I keep asking are, "How can a country with such a high concentration of intellectual capital be teetering on the verge of collapse? What is it that accounts for the gap between the "brilliance" on the one hand, and the "broken" on the other?

I would hope that these are questions occupying the minds of the leaders of our major educational institutions, and if they aren't, then clearly something is radically wrong and they ought to "wake up and smell the coffee". As far as I am concerned, if the country's tertiary institutions are not producing transformational leaders, then they might as well call it a day and go into some other kind of business.

The point is that if the society is failing, then so are our institutions of higher learning, and those who continue to live in the ivory towers of academia had better begin paying attention to what is happening on the outside of those walls.

What is even more perplexing is the fact that we now have living examples all over the world to emulate and encourage us to action. Globally, 2011 can be best described as "the year of people power". In the most striking and spontaneous fashion, people all over the globe took to the streets last year. To my mind, the Arab Spring best epitomises the dynamism of the movements in the Middle East, followed by the "Occupy Wall Street Movement" in the United States and across the world. Of note was the huge population of young people positioned at the forefront of the various uprisings and direct action campaigns.

So what is the difference between those young people and ours? What exactly is going on at our colleges and universities that is inhibiting youth activism? The Prophet Muhammad was quoted as saying, "If you see something wrong with the world, change it with your hands". That powerful statement should be inscribed on the walls of our educational institutions and embedded in the policies, programmes and culture of all those places where learning takes place.

One of the criticisms I have of the new People's National Party (PNP) administration is its perpetuation of political "parochialism". So far, every major appointment made is based entirely on loyalty to party, and while we understand that rewarding party faithful is germane to politics as we know it, it's a pity that the PNP doesn't appreciate the need to engage some of those in the society who are independent, progressive thinkers into its administration. The example set by US President Barack Obama in the way he embraced and invited his Republican rival into his Cabinet, was not only exemplary, it was smart. Obama made it clear that it was going to be country over party and he reached out for the best man to do the job.

And there are numerous scholars and experts with excellent ideas for reconstructing the Jamaican society and economy. Not only is there a repository of knowledge and experience waiting to be the tapped, but the capacity of those to network with colleagues and contemporaries outside of Jamaican is clearly underestimated.

Jamaica is suffering from a poverty of ideas, and already it appears as if the new administration is ready to fall into the same ditch of intellectual and creative stagnation that characterised previous governments.

Among the critical areas of national development is education reform and there are experts both inside and outside of Jamaica with a lot to offer. Last Thursday, I had the distinct pleasure of attending a public lecture hosted by the Sir Arthur Lewis Institute of Social and Economic Studies (SALISES) at the University of the West Indies. The main presentation was delivered by Professor Pedro Noguera of New York University, a leading expert in education and education transformation. Addressing the topic, "Education for Social and Economic Development: toward a more equitable and Just Jamaica in the 21st century", Professor Noguera, whose mother, interestingly, is Jamaican, skilfully outlined the problems and the solutions for education transformation. The ideas were fresh, dynamic and workable, and the only thing that I regretted was that the new minister of education was not present. It was definitely information and ideas for policy makers and implementers.

It is high time we narrow the huge gap between the intellectual prowess on the one hand and the realities of day-to-day living on the other, not only for the stimulation and sustenance of progressive and enlightened thought, but also for the advancement of the common man.

With love,
bab2609@yahoo.com

January 24, 2012

jamaicaobserver

Sex, scandal and society

Barbara Gloudon




THERE'S nothing we love more than a juicy scandal. Bring it on, especially if politics and politicians are in the mix-up and blenda. Our adrenalin gets going when the talk turns to corruption and any kinda ruption, which can prove what we believe -- that politics and politricks walk hand in hand. A recent survey says corruption is diminishing a bit, but let's see before we break out the champagne.

Up North, the three-letter word (S-E-X) is part of the scandal equation not only for errant politicians but for sports persons and entertainment superstars. There's nothing to boost ratings in the media like news of a headliner caught with pants down. (Remember President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky?) Efforts to take the US economy out of its tailspin paled in significance to the lurid coverage of Tiger Woods' dalliance.

Now that he's handed over a hefty chunk of his fortune to his ex-wife and is fighting a slump in his golf game, interest in him has waned considerably. He is not the first US hero to crumble under the crushing weight of a sex scandal. It's happened before and will happen again, so long as women are drawn by the aphrodisiac of fame, athletic physiques, and the possibility of a pay-off.

The groupie phenomenon is prevalent in the entertainment world but somehow, if we're to go by reports, entertainers do not seem to crash as spectacularly as sporting heroes. In our territory (the Caribbean), we are not as concerned about the romantic life of our superstars, not even when they mistreat women. Sadly, very often their staunchest defenders, willing to forgive, are women... The boys pretty much do what they want, thanks to the culture of — "Man haffe do wha a man haffe do — yuh nuh". The word for the boys: "If you can afford it, go for it. Nutten wrong wid gal inna bungle."

On the occasions when we do get a glimpse of the dark side of a hero, we don't quite know what to make of it. The recent exposé by England's notorious SUN tabloid of the alleged boudoir exploits of our Number One name-brand runner-boy, may have excited comment Up There but has barely evoked a whisper Down Here. In some quarters, there seems to be nothing but admiration among "the boys" for our young hero's achievement of having two hot young women fighting over him and the drama played out in the media.

The claim of one of the women that she has received text messages to participate in...shall we say, group activities... is definitely TMI — Too Much Information — for some, but not everyone. I met one person who responded, "All that stuff about threesomes and foursomes, who can prove that he really said it? Who knows if the girl is telling the truth?" Another view was, "So what? If he can manage it, why should anybody be concerned?" Then there are the many variations on the theme: "Youthful exuberance, that is all it is. What do you expect of a 24-year-old, with all that money and all that fame?" Not surprisingly, the foregoing responses came from men. One woman's response was, "I don't believe he would do that."

Should it matter really what this young man or any of our other young achievers do with their private time? Why shouldn't an athlete, an entertainer or anyone else who has attained success, be free to enjoy the benefits of their efforts in whatever permutations they choose? So long as no laws are being broken, should the rest of the community have any right to pass judgement on their private conduct? Not everyone is comfortable with that. What about moral values, role model and all that? Shouldn't we expect a certain level of conduct from people whom we hold up as icons?

Let's face it — arguments based on morality don't get very far here. Check the debates on lewd lyrics, slackness in dancehall and in the electronic media. A popular response is that people should be allowed to do what they want to do. "Leave us alone, thank you, please". That is for everybody except the politicians. So far nobody seems interested in their sex life. We leave that to those Up North. But back to the super-heroes, should they care if we find out what they do when the lights are turned off?

They need to be reminded that it doesn't take much for the cheers to stop. It is not such a long way from today's super-hero to tomorrow's "super-who"? The feeling is that we should not be too hard on "the youths". It's not such an easy thing to go overnight from pickney looking a lunch money and a bus fare, to platinum-card millionaire. It seems almost ungracious to warn about the potholes which can develop along the way.

Since Beijing, many of our young athletes have gained worldwide fame, and with it, healthy financial returns. They have become our new standard-bearers representing the best of JA. We've proclaimed them to be our Brand Jamaica. Should we expect any more of them? For the most part, they have been doing so well. Perhaps it is time for a little word of caution, however, that juvenile over-indulgence is to be avoided at all costs, especially too much information on bedroom olympics.

MR CLINTON CAME TO TOWN: Billed as an evening of intellectual challenge, it could not escape, however, being another high society event. It's the times! How could a former President of the United States of America come to town and we didn't play dress-up and nibble on gourmet delicacies? (Never mind that he spoke about poverty.)

The promoters apparently had their own reason for confining it to a high-end audience with an entrance fee of J$13,000 for regulars and US$1,000 for VIPs, I'm told. That was guaranteed to exclude those who wrestle every day with the soaring cost of chicken and flour. Corporate sponsorship more than took care of both the Bill and the bill. Not surprisingly, the event was an overwhelming success, fully sold out.

Feedback is that some thought the speech was the best thing since sliced bread. Others said they'd heard it all before. Some asked, why did it have to take a visitor (no matter how presidential) to make us sit up and listen to what we've been told often before (for example, urgency of solar energy) but haven't been interested enough to hear? Most said just to be in Bill Clinton's presence was worth it all.

DIS-COVER-UP: Did you see the disguises of the new millionaire winners in the Lotto Jackpot advertisement this week? Talk about Halloween! There's no limit to which some people will go to keep friends and relatives from beggie-beggie!... SING ON, COOL RULER... Gregory Isaacs moves on to the Ultimate Engagement. Another page is turned... The vintage list is getting shorter.

gloudonb@yahoo.com

October 29, 2010

jamaicaobserver

Bahamas Blog International

The challenges of an independent Jamaica

By RAULSTON NEMBHARD


WE are just two years shy of celebrating our 50th year of political independence from Britain.  When the Union Jack was lowered on August 6, 1962 and the Jamaican flag raised in its place, there was a surge of pride that we could now become the builders of our own destiny.  We stepped out boldly, if not brashly, filled with a sense of optimism as to what we could build.

We did not place any limits on our innate capacities to build a great nation; the future beckoned and we were willing - if naively - to place Jamaica on the map and to make of her a nation with which the world would reckon.  We were going to forge ahead, no matter the obstacles.  If we stumbled, it was not because we had lost that initial vision but that we were confronted with the predilections of the newly independent in seeking to take responsibility for our own lives and destinies.

Despite the initial optimism we felt as a nation, an honest reflection on where we have come over the past 48 years must leave us deeply concerned about our status as a free society and to wonder where all this independence has gone.  A further question may be, if we are truly independent, whose independence has it been?  That of the vast majority of our people who continue to bear a disproportionate part of the burden for building this society (the have-nots), or that of the few (the haves) who have sought to govern and exploit them in their own thirst for power — political, economic and intellectual power?

We have come to realise, and sometimes shockingly so, that building a strong, independent nation is not predicated on wishful thinking, or on the capricious behaviour of those we have elected over the years to conduct our business.  We are far from being a politically mature nation.  We have failed to understand the consensus that should exist between the governed and their governors and that which should redound to good governance.  We have simply ignored the time-honoured declaration of Thomas Jefferson to which we have to return constantly to remind ourselves of the basic foundation of good government -- governments which function with the consent of the governed.  In that Declaration of American Independence, Jefferson made it known in a flash of brilliance which, as it turned out, was a characteristic of his, that governments exist to secure and promote the rights of people and that prominent among these rights is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

A nation that has slaughtered close to 2,000 of its people yearly for almost the last decade can hardly be described as a nation that respects the right to life.  And I am talking here not only about citizens killing citizens, but extra-judicial killings by agents of the state.  As to liberty, how truly free are we to live our lives in the wholesome fashion that Jefferson envisaged?  There can be no liberty where there is no justice.  Human freedom is constrained by injustice, especially when it is directed to the citizen from the state.  When this happens, the citizen is shackled by the predation of the state and this predation is not just limited to the excesses of the state's agents, but by predatory tax laws that prevent him from keeping and using most of what he earns.  In summary, we are still not functioning as a just society; we still judge people by how they look and the kind of community in which they reside.  The very black among us get a different treatment tending toward injustice than the very brown among us.  There is one set of laws for downtown and another for uptown.  To use a phrase of the late Ralph Brown in describing socialism, what we have as independence when it comes to justice is "mouthwater" independence.

As to the pursuit of happiness after 48 years of existence as a nation, you can hardly ask one Jamaican how he is doing without getting the dismal response, "Nutten nah gwaan" or some other variant on a misery index.  This is as true of those who are making it as it is of those who are barely surviving.  Never mind where we are placed by the world as the "third happiest nation".  We know in Jamaica life is tough and it is only the truly resilient who make it.  It is true that no country can guarantee a person's happiness. Happiness is a function of private initiative and drive deeply riveted in the choices we make.  If you squander opportunities that come your way, you cannot blame others for your own misery.  For example, there is no law that says you must stay in an unhappy relationship; that you must become addicted to alcohol or other mind-altering substances; that the only way forward in life is to plant a plot of ganja or to become involved in some other nefarious activity.  Each one of us lies in the bed we make and this is made worse if you owe three months' hire-purchase payment on it!

While I understand this, governments must create the ambience in which a thriving, energetic citizenry can embark enterprisingly on projects that can improve their lives and those of their families.  This is where I think successive governments since independence have failed the Jamaican people.  It is to the building of this kind of society that we have to bend our energies.  We have wasted a lot of time and lost ground over the past 48 years.  We are still a young nation and we can do better. The question is, will we?

stead6655@aol.com


www.drraulston.com

August 11, 2010

jamaicaobserver