Dear Editor,
I usually enjoy Clovis' satirical portrayal of public issues in Jamaica. Satire, as is well known, makes use of humour, ridicule, irony, sarcasm, exaggeration, and wit for the ostensible purpose of exposing and discouraging a vice or folly.

However, satire can often degenerate into character assassination. This is how I perceive Clovis' cartoon that appeared in Thursday's (November 29, 2007) edition of the Observer.

Clovis caricatures the Public Service Commission (PSC) as "putting Vasciannie first" with its members raising their glasses in bacchanalian revelry. The banner "We put Vasciannie first" is a clear allusion to the PNP slogan of 1989. The PSC chairman is portrayed as carrying Professor Stephen Vasciannie before the prime minister, who inquires, "Daisy, how long yuh plan to hold him up?"

The cartoon clearly implies that the PSC's recommendation emanates from inebriation (with power, perhaps?) rather than deliberation, and that their resistance to government opposition to their recommendation is grounded in partisanship rather than principle.

Prof Vasciannie is unfairly caricatured as owing his recommendation to a presumptive allegiance between the PSC and the PNP, rather than on the merit of his own qualifications. The cartoon suggests that the PSC ignored any other applications in a singular bid to improperly secure Prof Vasciannie's selection over any other applicant.

To be credible or effective, satire must be based on a substratum of fact. Based on information available to the public, there is no evidence that the PSC has acted either partisanly or improperly in maintaining its recommendation of Vasciannie.

The cartoon seems to implicitly endorse the prime minister's opposition to the PSC, based on the PSC's supposedly bacchanalian/power-drunk and partisan approach. It has been reported that the prime minister is intent on having the appointments of the PSC revoked for alleged misbehaviour.

Misbehaviour itself is a legal construct within the context of the constitution. So far there is no evidence of any misbehaviour, much less misbehaviour as portrayed by Clovis. It seems to me that cartoon may prejudicially establish in the mind of the public that the lampooned behaviour may be within the contemplation of the PM, when this has not been established.

If my interpretation is correct, your newspaper has not only villified the PSC, but has grossly distorted the important constitutional issues at stake. It is beyond debate that the constitution confers upon the PSC the constitutional prerogative to select the solicitor general, without political interference from the political directorate.

While the PM has the constitutional power to revoke appointments through the GG, for misbehaviour, it should be noted that misbehaviour is a legal construct within the context of the constitution. As indicated before, the prime minister has reportedly cited the PSC for misbehaviour.

Until such misbehaviour is
clearly alleged or established, I believe that the cartoon is not
only pejorative, but grossly prejudicial to any defence that the PSC may be called upon to adduce in possible subsequent litigious or other proceedings.

Ironically, given what is known about the current impasse, I think a more apt target for satire would be the government's known attitude to the constitutional autonomy of the PSC than a figment of Clovis' imagination.

O Hilaire Sobers
ohilaire@yahoo.com

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World