PNP MP Roger Clarke is one among that rare breed of politicians who have never attracted acrimonious criticism from either the media or his colleagues on the other side of the aisle.

Those who know him will say that that is so because his earthy charm is as big as he is, and he never carries a grudge for too long. In a recent contribution to our national debate in Gordon House – that comical address on Duke Street – he uttered a seeming triviality, an afterthought, which missed us only because we never expect to gain much significance from political minutiae.

The item was captured in a newspaper article titled “Chairman of Parliament’s Standing Finance Committee has painted journalists as enemies of politicians”.

The article’s focus was on Delroy Chuck’s comments while he was chairing the committee last week Wednesday. Chuck is also an easily approachable politician, but by his comments one senses that he has imbibed the bad soup which was described by one online commentator thus: “Politics as it is practised in Jamaica is contaminating. An honest man does not stand a chance after he becomes a part of the government and soon finds that compromise is a slippery slope. I see this with every change of a party/government. Same s@#t, different flies.

“Honest men with great and altruistic intentions, who – in Opposition – brilliantly articulate the shortcomings of the system, soon, after achieving power, become its greatest defender of the status quo. When he rejoins the ranks of the Opposition, he takes up his old script, dusts it off and begins his campaign with missionary fervour, once more.”

As a member of the Cabinet, it forces us to recall that while Chuck was in Opposition, he wrote a regular column in the Gleaner and was a ‘yawning’ regular on Perkins on Line. At both outlets he was an extremely harsh critic of the then PNP Government. Many of those in the PNP who had power then, have now in Opposition taken up their old scripts, dusted them off and are on the verge of beginning to campaign with missionary fervour.

But, back to Delroy Chuck. Said the newspaper article of him: “The media don’t like any politician,” Chuck said, as he warned members to be careful of the sotto voce comments they made.

“Every single thing that you say that is destructive that really puts us in a bad light, the media is the first to highlight it …When you are calm and OK, that is not news, but when you open your mouth, that is what they pick up and try to knock us down with and we are our worst enemies at that.”

During a period of discussion which the Leader of Opposition Business Derrick Kellier captured as “We can’t conduct the exercise in an atmosphere of chaos and acrimony,” Mr ‘Rice Eater’ himself, the lovable Roger Clarke said: “The breathalyser must be used in this Parliament.”

The question is, what does Roger Clarke know that we do not know, but as a result of that statement slipping out, suspect we now know?

Let us face it, if the House and all of its important committees chaired by both PNP and JLP were overrun by politicians who were heavily under the influence of the sauce, it certainly would explain a lot. We would be able to make the claim that Wray and Nephew has ruled our Parliament.

Maybe Smirnoff Vodka would come in for harsh criticism because I am certain that it would have a place of prominence in our national decisions. We would be able to make an easier determination among our politicians who have a habit of nodding off at 2 pm. Where previously the claim could be made that they toiled long and hard, way up through the night on the nation’s business, now that Roger has made it slip, it would be easier for us to conclude that the gravity of the nation’s problem was much too pressing for them and, faced with the enormity of the task and their own inabilities, they simply got smashed on white rum, whisky, gin and vodka and slept the night away.

Once the politician is defrocked of his ego – that is whenever he allows himself the luxury of feeling what all the rest of us are experiencing – he will come back to himself. When he does this, the advantage he has over the rest of us is that he can afford to pay the bill for the sauce to pickle his brain.

Years ago when I was young, it was the habit of my friends and me to look at passersby and choose whom we thought were hard drinkers. To us it was simple. If a man had etched on his face a “permanent screw” it meant either that life had dealt him a bad hand or he was severely troubled by hard times and was trying to drink them away, or there was a clash of both.

Former Commandant of the ISCF, Harold Crooks, has gone AWOL during the midst of an investigation of child sexual assault. He has reported to a radio station that he fears returning to Jamaica as he believes that he will not be given a fair hearing. If a man like Crooks can say that about a system that he was as closely connected to as one will ever get, we are left to ask, what does Crooks know that we only suspected before, but now have firmer convictions of? We want Crooks to elaborate.

In like manner, we would like PNP veteran politician Roger Clarke to relieve us of wondering if what he said was pure jest. Well, I suspect it was very definitely not jest, and my reason for concluding that is the easy manner in which all in the committee deliberations just let his slip slip away into nothingness. Was it too much embarrassment?

These are the times in which men’s souls are severely tried. Like us mere mortals, politicians will have their moments when they lapse into weakness. When we do, our households are affected. When politicians do so the nation is afflicted.

Was Mr Clarke trying to send a signal to us that as much as our people were trying to prop up their daily sanity, what with all the economic uncertainties and the fear of violent criminality, the politicians had long found their relief in drink? Is it possible that we could simply take a long, hard stare across both sides of the political aisle and guess who looks as if he or she is always on the sauce?

Well, let me see now. The prettiest person in the House, that is, outside of Peter Bunting, is Lisa Hanna. Miss Hanna certainly doesn’t look like the sort to approach Roger Clarke and say, “Weh yu a seh Roger, yu can buy a Q later.” Certainly not Lisa.

It’s very difficult to determine if a woman is a heavy drinker because women are better at their game in many matters than men. But who are the men in the House whose looks and deportment are a dead giveaway on drunkenness? Too difficult?

Well, let me ask the easier question. Who are the few sober-looking ones?

observemark@gmail.com