JAMAICA’S politicians will have a tough time improving their public image ahead of the next general elections, thanks in part to the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry.

Fifty-nine per cent or 117 of 200 people — including 101 from Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) communities — sampled in Dr Herbert Gayle’s study The Complete Snapshot said their views of politicians were worse since the Dudus/Manatt Commission of Enquiry.

The enquiry was set up by Prime Minister Bruce Golding in October last year to probe the issues relating to the extradition request by the United States Government for Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke, and the hiring of the law firm Manatt, Phelps & Phillips.

However, after 44 days of testimony at the enquiry, which was televised live from the Jamaica Conference Centre in downtown Kingston, many Jamaicans feel more in the dark than ever. At the same time, they — and in particular the young — appear now to be far more mistrustful of politicians than ever.

“Words such as ‘liars’, ‘deceitful’, ‘horrible’ and ‘corrupt’ were used by respondents of all ages and both sexes to describe politicians,” notes the study, done to inform Gayle’s radio programme The Complete Picture, which is aired on NewsTalk 93 FM between noon and 3:00 pm, Mondays to Thursdays.

“The PM (Golding) was not exempt from these descriptions. In fact, five JLP women expressed utter disappointment in him. Paradoxically, two women praised him for his craft of ‘not telling them anything’,” the study adds.

At the same time, 79 or 39 per cent of those sampled — 29 or 37 per cent of them mature males (males over 35) — said they saw politicians the same.

According to the study, the basic sentiment of the mature male was: “Dem is the same, no enquiry going to change those kinds of people. Dem is not just corrupt overnight.”

“The older males from JLP communities were also very quick to point out that ‘the PNP must not talk though, for them not much better’,” the study says further.

The ‘snapshot’ also revealed that an overwhelming number of those sampled felt that lawyers and politicians — not members of the public — were the likely primary beneficiaries of the enquiry.

Sixty-five per cent or 129 of those sampled and 48 per cent or 96 of those sampled said that lawyers and politicians were the most likely to benefit from the commission.

“The general public and criminals were tied at 10 per cent and media houses were expected to benefit a bit more at 12 per cent (in terms of) money, exposure and airtime,” the study noted.

“One young woman explained that she heard criminals in her community explain to each other why they need the member of Parliament — ‘the politicians never get punished, so we have to let them shelter us’,” the study notes.

“All together, 19 persons felt criminals were getting a lesson from the Commission that ‘if you are a criminal, you must support your party so they can be in power as they defend you’,” the study says further.

At the same time, 114 or 57 per cent of those sampled responded “hell no” to the question of whether the legal and commission teams in the enquiry deserved the fees they were paid — $30,000 per hour for the senior people and $21,500 per hour for their juniors. Nineteen per cent or 37 of those sampled responded ‘no’ compared to nine per cent or 18 who responded ‘yes, definitely’ and 11 per cent or 22 who said ‘yes, satisfactory’.

“The chairman (Emil George) was considered the least deserving. Nine persons pointed this out — ‘Him don’t do a thing for that money’,” the study reports.

Gayle’s findings are reflected in those of Ian Boxhill in the RJR Group/Boxhill Poll conducted last month. Seventy-eight per cent of 1,015 people surveyed islandwide considered the enquiry a waste of money. And while 33 per cent felt that the proceedings were conducted fairly and transparently, 59 per cent disagreed. Further, only 23 per cent of those polled felt that any change would result from the 44 days of testimony.

The commission adjourned on April 1, with commissioners George, Anthony Irons and Donald Scharschmidt expected to submit their final report on May 16. However, the commissioners have since requested an extension of that date to some time next month, so the public will have to wait to hear their assessment of the proceedings.

Meanwhile, the politicians’ plight has not been helped by other revelations during and since the enquiry — including, more recently, the leaked diplomatic cables acquired by a local media house through the non-profit media entity WikiLeaks.

According to Gayle, the situation is such that resigning is the only real option for some among the current crop of politicians, both from the JLP and the People’s National Party (PNP).

“Some of them need to just do the decent thing and leave,” he told the Sunday Observer.

“I think it is like in the Merchant of Venice with Launcelot Gobbo who was caught between the deciding who he should go with — the devil or the fiend. Who do you choose? The JLP ‘write off’ the PNP on a campaign ticket that said they were like the devil and now the people — after the Manatt Enquiry and a number of other things — see that, my God, it is no better on this side. So what do they do?” noted the anthropologist of social violence.

“The other side of it is how do these politicians present a picture to these people that they are neither the devil nor the fiend or in fact that they repairable, because it is one thing to be hopeless, but it is quite another to be irreparably hopeless,” he said further.

In any event, Gayle said it is essential that, at the very least, the country should come away from its recent experiences with a list of criteria as to who is a “fit and proper” person to hold political office.

“Next year we are going to be 50 years old and I think that the least that should emerge from this is a list of criteria that we can all agree on which says that if the persons nominated do not fit the criteria, then he or she is not a fit and proper person to stand for office,” he said. “At the top of that list is that the person should not be charged for a major crime. It shouldn’t be a part of our common knowledge that he or she has committed a major crime.”

Horace Levy, himself a researcher and also a member of the Peace Management Initiative, said he did not expect any change among politicians would come from the politicians themselves, but instead from civil society.

“It would appear they (politicians) only change if there is some pressure from civil society. So civil society has to try and help them to change… When I say civil society, I don’t necessarily mean NGOs (non-governmental organisations) and so on; it can be civil society in the form of communities conveying their views through parish development committees and influencing and advising local government, which could, in turn, affect these old politicians as well as the wider political scene,” he told the Sunday Observer.

Levy added that politicians face an uphill fight to repair their image, but “it is because of the downhill road that they have trod for so long” — prior to and since the Dudus/Manatt Enquiry.

The task facing them, according to political commentator Richard ‘Dickie’ Crawford, is such that there is not enough time between now and the next elections, constitutionally due next year, for politicians to make any serious impact on the public.

“The level of cynicism in the society is so high that makeovers or image creations are not going to work. To my mind, the only thing that politicians can hope for now to build a substantially different image is to really deal with the issues and problems that exist and more than that to convince the society that they are doing so and to give clear evidence of that,” he said.

“Politicians — maybe more so in our country — have had a very difficult time in adjusting to the new environment in which they operate. First of all, our politicians have been accustomed to having the kind of power from the constitution and the laws of Jamaica that puts them in an almost invincible position and they have ruled over us in this way. In that arrangement, they need not have worried much about public opinion and their transgressions because the only real control we would have over them is at election time to vote them out,” Crawford added.

“All that has changed since the information revolution and our politicians now are at the mercy of information, which is instant, global and far-reaching. And therefore, the level of people’s cynicism towards politicians and the views that we have of them is largely due to the information that we have gained in many areas — from the media, from the Internet and I don’t think they have (adjusted to that). So they blame the international economic crisis, they blame each other in the Parliament, they blame everything — except their own stewardship as the reason why the society looks at them in the way that they do,” he said further.

According to Crawford, it was now the moment of change.

“Interestingly, as dismal as it is right now, the moment is also pregnant with hope. It is actually the sad state of our political system and the behaviour of our political leaders that is going to stir us to take the necessary steps to have it corrected. I think we are getting to the point where people are definitely worried about the future of the country, people are definitely convinced that it cannot continue this way and I detect that people really want a solution to the problems and a peaceful society in which to live,” he told the Sunday Observer.

“Therefore, inevitably, the society has already taken steps to correct some of the worse transgressions and are going to continue to do so. It is really up to us in civil society, as we always say, to make the difference. Yes, it is bad and at the same time, it is very good because an end is in sight to this type of politics and I am very hopeful on that basis,” he added.