Context matters. Yet, context is not a synonym for apologetics. It is purely for providing background and sketching milieus in which certain events emerged. Historical context, for instance, refers to the moods, attitudes and conditions (social, political, cultural or economic) that existed in a certain time. Therefore, context is usually relevant. It is essential to the process of building deeper understanding and awareness around some of the issues (historical) that remain inextricably linked to present-day activities and outcomes.

Providing the requisite framework around our development or a scenery of our common experiences is critical, especially for young people, many of whom harbour grave cynicism toward politics, democracy, economic opportunities, more so as they assess their individual chances for advancement.

There are no greater obligations of citizenship, I think, than the responsibility to protect the integrity of our historical legacy and achievements. There is no greater duty of citizenship than the duty to guide the process by which we assess our current challenges and struggles. Importantly, however, is the onus that citizenship places on us to participate in identifying, amplifying, designing, modifying and fortifying a way forward as a people.

Context gives meaning to our efforts to destabilise myths surrounding our contemporary socio-political culture, and helps to explain the burdensome and unrelenting nature of our economic experiment to date. We have not always provided good context; and sadly, we have not always relied on complete or updated texts on which to build the context we provide. The repercussion of a lack of context manifests itself in a deeper misunderstanding of the issues and the ensuing confusion it creates for everyone. Let us use two recent examples of instances where context was either missing or established on insufficient texts, both of which resulted in untidy, highly emotive and misguided debates.

The first surrounds the issue of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and its “expressed willingness to travel to Jamaica to hear cases” and the second surrounds the so-called “prison gift” from the United Kingdom. By virtue of the commonness of their geography and origin, though strikingly dissimilar, there is relevant symbiosis between issues appertaining to the Privy Council, 10 Downing Street, and the UK Houses of Parliament.

First, the Jamaica Observer newspaper reporting under the banner ‘Privy Council Shocker’ was an attention grabber and, undoubtedly, it generated many emotive responses. The first question I asked myself after reading the headline was, “How much information does this banner give?” To me, beyond the histrionics, the headline did not provide much, until I read the entire report and realised that the referenced “letter” had a “lobby-like” antecedent dating back almost six years. The Observer made it easy for reasonable people to infer, based on the letter, that the absoluteness of Justice Minister Mark Golding’s claim about the non-itinerant nature of the Privy Council is as bloated as it is foundationally feeble.

For me, though, the most interesting interpretation of the “Privy Council Shocker” news story and the ensuing debate is the obvious lack of relevance that the discovery conveyed. That, almost six years ago, the Privy Council expressed “conditional willingness” to visit this locus to hear cases does not provide a definitive premise on which to shoot down the efficacy of the itinerant nature of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). It provides no reason to overlook the CCJ’s accessibility and lower cost. Hence, it fails to assail the arguments supporting the entrenchment of the CCJ as our final appellate court. Nothing in the letter speaks to the Privy Council’s plans to alter its arrangements to accommodate us.

Put another way, I received a note from a friend that says, “Mom will be heading for Kingston shortly after her baptism on Sunday.” That statement, in and of itself, means little. However, if after looking at the date of the note, I discover it was written on September 10, 1980, then, I could begin to contextualise her desire for wanting to wait until after her baptism to visit Kingston, because her visit would have coincided with an ugly period in Jamaica’s history when political violence claimed well over 876 lives. There is nothing to suggest that I should be permanently anxious about other pending visits.

The second example concerns the so-called UK prison gift. Again, some Jamaican media houses relied on incorrect text that caused widespread misunderstanding and confusion about the prison proposal. Reaching a deal is not the same as reaching an understanding — context is vital here. The UK Government did grave injustice to Jamaica by prematurely posting information on its 10 Downing Street website that gave the impression that the “prison deal” was already a fait accompli, knowing it was not. The timing for announcing the prison proposal was also most inopportune, given the sensitive reparation debate. Then, our own Government’s poor handling and insufficient communication did not assist the process of achieving timely or accurate dissemination of information. Politics also hijacked and overshadowed the simple process of explaining. In the end, emotions replaced rational thinking.

However, the minute Minister of National Security Peter Bunting started referring to the “Non-binding Memorandum of Understanding”, it became clear that a binding agreement remained unsigned. The truth is that most of us listen to someone with the intention of replying. Consequently, as soon as we have a response in mind, we automatically tune out and turn off our hearing. Once we heard no apologies for slavery and nothing about reparation from the visiting UK PM, we completely lost interest in everything else that he articulated.

Unfortunately, we automatically deprived ourselves of the opportunity to gain new insights from the subsequent words he shared about a bigger programme for infrastructural development. We also forfeited the opportunity to have a bigger and more robust discussion on the issue of human rights, crime and violence, rehabilitation, recidivism, and how building a new prison could assist in reducing murders, gang violence and improve our chances of receiving additional justice reform support. Unfortunately, the discussions devolved into political opportunism followed by an over-expression of passion and sensitivity. With proper context we could have (still can) achieved so much more. For, if we truly understood the background (context) for the prison proposition, if we truly understood the “prisoner-transfer” mechanism, I believe we would be having a different conversation, and perhaps even gaining an awareness that Jamaican prisoners in London, however tainted, came from bloodlines with strong links to our own.

Portia in context

This brings me to Portia Simpson Miller’s performance as prime minister of Jamaica. Last Sunday, my phone rang quite a bit. Between 7:30 am and 1:00 pm, there were about 25 missed calls, 90 per cent of which were overseas calls from Jamaica. The very first call was from a Comrade, who called to congratulate me for openly endorsing Delano Seiveright, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) candidate for the St Thomas Eastern seat. My Comrade friend’s acknowledgement of my public endorsement was as satirical as it was sardonically humorous.

The conversation went something like, “Burns, you are a brave man. Well, at least the JLP owes you one, because the PNP (People’s National Party) cannot win every seat. According to our internal count, if we give up Fenton, we still have about 40 that we are going to win. Let me ask you something else, though, why you dislike Sista P so much?” When I told him, “I love Portia no less, I just happen to love Jamaica more…” He laughed; then asked, “Burns, so when you coming to enter representational politics? You have politics in your blood from school days…” We both chuckled, but moved on to a bigger discussion surrounding my fierce criticisms of Simpson Miller’s premiership.

By way of clarity, I hold no malevolence or hostility towards Portia. Of course, I do not admire her “Shame ‘O macca” style of leadership. I stoutly abhor the fact that she allows foolish fear to devalue her political capital. I am annoyed that she allows handlers to drown out her voice and limit her visibility among the people to such an extent that she has lost touch with them. Her aloofness is unfathomable, particularly in instances that require the presence and voice of the commander-in-chief. Even so, warts and all, Portia remains one of few politicians whom I admire and want to see succeed, because I see in her a leader with a high level of believability, honesty, strength of conviction, steely courage, stick-to-itiveness, and sincerity of heart.

To talk about the importance of context in assessing a person’s performance is to talk about the amazing job Portia, yes, Portia Simpson Miller and her team have been doing to turn around the Jamaican economy, even though it is still a work-in-progress. Job creation, robust economic growth and spiralling crime are the white elephants. Nevertheless, her Government has accomplished a lot and things are picking up. Just recently the South Korean motor company, Hyundai, announced that it is now using Jamaica as its regional hub. Jamaica Promotions Corporation (JAMPRO) announced a US$350-million joint venture deal involving Gulfray Americas and China National Automotive Industry International Corporation (CNAICO) for an automotive assembly plant in the Spanish Town Free Zone. Mexican outfit Karisma Hotels and Resorts said it is investing more than US$900 million in a mega hotel project in St Ann that will add 4,000 additional rooms to Jamaica’s tourism sector over 10 years.

What the PNP inherited from the JLP in 2011 was nothing short of a monumental socio-economic disaster. Take it from me, it is not by chance that the 2016 World Bank’s Doing Business Report ranks the Jamaican economy in the top 10 most improved economies worldwide. It does not end there. Jamaica was also ranked 64 for 2016 Doing Business Report a jump of seven places from 2015. Jamaica’s economic freedom score is 67.7, making its economy the 48th freest in the 2015 Index out of 178 countries.

We must never shy away from speaking the truth, even if it is unpopular and hard on the ears of political twits. We may dislike Portia, but disliking her should not become the punishment for success, and it should not cause us to diminish the significant accomplishments and sacrifices she and her Administration have made for and on behalf of Jamaica. Politics is a rough sport, but it does not require anyone to become indifferent to his or her own conscience. It is a pleasure to congratulate our prime minister and her team, especially the minister of finance, on these remarkable accomplishments.