The decision by Mr Danville Walker to contest the Central Manchester seat in the next general election seems to have stirred up a hornets’ nest in the PNP camp. Part of the concern seems to be concentrated on whether public servants, who may have been privy to privileged and confidential information while in their official public positions, should be allowed to serve as politicians without a cooling-off period. The suggestion is that such officials have an advantage and may be able to exert certain influence that may not be available to members of the other political parties. Another part of the concern for the PNP is whether Mr Walker is a fit and proper person to represent the constituency given certain allegations they have proferred against him with respect to his work at the Customs.

With regard to the matter of exerting undue influence, this is not an unfounded fear, given the tribal nature of Jamaican politics. We have known of instances where the resources of the state have been used to give advantage to a party in power to remain in power. The now legendary “run wid it” preoccupation of the PNP administration in 2002 is a prominent case in point. I can understand the intent of a cooling-off period for certain sensitive positions in government, but one hopes that the suggestion is not being made that such persons should not serve. I believe the PNP angst against Mr Walker, in particular, is misplaced. He has been universally acknowledged by both the PNP and JLP to be a hard-working public servant; to have transformed for good areas of government in which he has worked, especially at the electoral office as director of elections. No one can forget the days when tribal political conflict reigned supreme in our elections and the brave stance taken by Mr Walker to ensure, as far as was possible, a balanced and fair electoral process. There were pockets of discontent in some areas as to the fairness of some of these elections, but by and large there was overall satisfaction. Today, the electoral office is a model for fair and balanced elections and Mr Walker is to be commended for his sterling work in making it so.

Now he has thrown his hat into the ring to do battle with Mr Peter Bunting for the Central Manchester seat of which Mandeville is the epicentre. I hope the word “battle” will be understood metaphorically, because there are areas of the constituency that are wont to see it in literal terms. Like other areas of the country, Central Manchester has seen a rise in hard-core criminal activities in recent times. It has not been spared the tragedy of political violence. Mr Walker and Mr Bunting must ensure that they conduct a campaign process that is free and fair, and free from all fear. They may start to do so by refraining from incendiary rhetoric and name-calling. For example, it is below Mr Bunting’s dignity to be calling Mr Walker “Scrappy”, a denigrating reference to the perceived difficulties of Mr Walker in the export of scrap metal. Mr Bunting, we know you are capable of a higher tone so let us see it. Now that the contractor general has launched an investigation into this operation, he should be allowed to do his job and then the chips should fall where they may.

The residents of Central Manchester, and indeed all of Manchester, and Jamaica, deserve a fair and violence-free electoral process. Those who offer themselves for public office must be judged not on the basis of flowery rhetoric and promises which cannot be fulfilled. They must be judged on the evidence of their actions, their moral clarity on the issues being discussed, their respect for the dignity of their opponent, and their respect for the people they seek to represent. If this should be the case we will begin to see the paradigm shift which we need in our politics and to which Prime Minister Holness has alluded.

In the meantime, as we consider those who serve and those wishing to serve, more than passing attention needs to be paid to the resolution of the dual-citizenship matter which precludes a lot of people in the diaspora from serving. The specious argument has been advanced that if Jamaicans hold citizenship in another country they will have no patriotic loyalty to Jamaica if they are allowed to sit in the Parliament. I cannot remember any questions being raised about the patriotic loyalty of those who were serving before they were exposed by the indefatigable Dabdoub. The fact that they renounced their citizenship is a demonstration of great loyalty to Jamaica which I believe would have been there whether or not they were exposed. What about those with dual citizenship who served in the past, some perhaps doing so with great distinction? What about some who may now be serving but who have not yet been exposed?

It is ridiculous to allow a Canadian citizen to serve and deny a Jamaican-American from doing so even though both Canada and the USA share a common border, perhaps culture, and certainly a viable economic relationship. If the argument is that the Jamaican-American can pick up and leave whenever he wants to, especially if things get rough, what would prevent the Canadian citizen from doing the same? What about the person from Zimbabwe, Pakistan, New Zealand or Barbados? We must bring some rationality to this discussion and one would hope that whichever party forms the next government this issue will be placed on the agenda for constitutional resolution.

stead6655@aol.com

www.drraulston.com