One of the net results of the global economic crisis from which the world is slowly recovering is the growing suspicion that people have of the professional politician. The economic fallout and governmental incompetence in the face of it have jolted many to the reality that undiluted trust in the workings of government is a dangerous thing; that without the necessary safeguards and checks and balances to restrain those in whom are invested great powers, the health of nations can be severely compromised by pernicious corruption.

In every country that has suffered financial fallout, there is a detectable strain of a failure of personal responsibility and accountability, both in the private and public sectors. The degree of moral laxity evident in this lack of accountability is troubling. In many areas, especially in the financial fallout on Wall Street in America, it would appear that the conscience of many went on vacation as people swam in the wealth flowing from the sale of securitised mortgages. The American government’s failure to anticipate the growing danger or to see the economic storm clouds that were gathering on the horizon was one thing. More palpable was the failure of personal accountability by the actors in the drama. Base utilitarianism was the mantra: it was all about the money.

The chickens came home to roost in the latter part of 2008 and are still in the roost in the first year of the second decade of the 21st century. Eggs certainly will be laid. The question is how palatable will they be. As has been well documented, there is nothing that governments can do to legislate morality or to guarantee moral conduct. This is the function of conscience, the moral arbiter and self-regulating mechanism planted in human beings by the Creator for their moral health. Without the self-policing, self-regulatory function of conscience, there is no legislation that can be enacted that will prevent another Tyco under Kovlovski, another MCI under Bernard Ebbers, another Enron under Ken Lay and his cohorts and another Wall Street collapse as we witnessed in the last quarter of 2008. Although laws can restrain the heartless as Martin Luther King recognised, they cannot fundamentally alter cognitive behaviour. People will act on what they think and if they do not think too deeply about the ideas that form in their heads, they are likely to carry out actions that are deleterious to themselves and to others.

This brings us again to the matter of governance and the responsibility that is placed in the hands of those who hold political power. It is not sufficient for the politicians by themselves to police themselves. It is the assumption of any well-functioning democracy that those who are given power must be held responsible by the governed, who gave it in the first place. This measure must become a feature of Jamaican society or we will not be able to claim that we have a well-functioning democracy. Too many of the important decisions that are made in this country are held hostage to the idiosyncrasies of those who wield political power, especially the prime minister who is at the top of the heap.

But politicians in both the PNP and JLP and those bringing up the rear must be made to understand that their game is now well known by the growing number of those who are disenchanted by the political process. They are disenchanted for the expressed reason that they no longer see a well-functioning democracy in Jamaica. When Mr Golding was in the NDM and later became the Opposition leader, one of the things to which he committed himself was the decentralisation of power from the prime minister in whose hands he believed too much power was concentrated. Now that he has tasted of the power himself and on more than one occasion has used this power to his own advantage, one cannot be too sure that he is solidly committed to the paradigm of decentralisation. At least, I cannot recall that he has reaffirmed this in any statement since his ascendancy to power. It would help if he could restate this commitment if indeed he is still committed to this idea.

The people have grown increasingly impatient with the shenanigans on both sides of the political aisle. Even the diehard tribal loyalists seem to be no longer impressed by the quixotic behaviour of their political bosses. They will wring the last “Nanny” or “Joshy” out of them, but there is no longer the deep respect and even awe in which they were once held. Politicians no longer cut the dash that they have managed to convince themselves they once had. The more delusional among them would want to build sandcastles to their own glory, believing they are the best thing since sliced bread, but hardly anyone is buying. To reclaim some credibility, our politicians would be well advised to cut out the antics and begin to focus seriously on the business of governance – doing the people’s business. If they are to do this effectively they must consult with the people and take them into their confidence. If this had been done we would not have had the trauma of “Dudusgate” in 2010. In 2011 the push for power will be on in earnest. Can we dare to hope that someone of stately stature will emerge who truly knows what Jamaica needs at this time and will commit to a path that will lead to a better life for the Jamaican people? If hope can become fulfilment, then I will be more comfortable in wishing my readers a productive and fruitful year ahead.

stead6655@aol.com

www.drraulston.com