Dr Peter Phillips, at the 80th anniversary celebration of the People’s National Party (PNP), was in full flight as he excoriated the ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) for its alleged corrupt practices in Government. True to the pedigree of all Opposition politicians, he made grandiose promises of what the PNP would do differently if the party should be given the opportunity to form the next Government. Phillips brought a vigour and cogency to his presentation which has not been seen of him since he became party president. I am sure that the Comrades will be praying for him to maintain this stamina into the next general election.

But it is the fulmination against corruption that grabbed my attention more than any other matter. Prime Minister Andrew Holness, in a speech later that evening, sought to score points by cataloguing the series of scandals that have plagued different PNP governments in their 22 years of governance. I am sure that both gentlemen and their supporters felt good that they were delivering significant body blows to their opponents in this public boxing match in which they were engaged. It did not seem to dawn on any of them that they were admitting corruption by their respective governments, and that it was just a matter of the degree of corruption and who was landing a more telling blow in accusing the other side of this behaviour.

It certainly grated on my nerves when I heard this tracing match between the prime minister and the leader of Her Majesty’s loyal Opposition. It was a public display of hypocrisy by both men and a corresponding insult to the intelligence of the Jamaican people. Neither denied that their respective party has behaved corruptly as Government. It was just the degree of corruption that was at stake.

And neither could they deny it; for we know that both parties that have ruled Jamaica since Independence cannot come to the people with clean hands and pure hearts, and that both have indulged in corrupt practices that have sullied the good name of Jamaica and held back its development. What they should be ashamed of, admit, and come up with credible and sincere strategies to end, has been elevated to a social principle in an effort to win or maintain political power. In this they are single-mindedly shameless.

Since Independence our politics has been characterised as an internecine tribal conflict between what has been dubbed the “gangs” in Gordon House for the allocation of scarce benefits and spoils. In the context of this tribal politics those who have tried to work hard from a mindset of moral probity and investment in a strong work ethic are the ones most likely to get shafted. The distribution of scarce benefits and spoils has been a function of a politics defined by those who get what, when and where. The inevitable outcome of this kind of politics is the creation of an economic environment that is inhospitable to investments.

In the shameless tracing match between our two political leaders the people are once again left to wonder about the future of Jamaica. Many have shown no interest to vote for either tribe and prefer instead to sit on the fence, even though their lives will be pulverised by the policies of any tribe that is more successful in getting out its tribalists.

What has been surprising is that people year after year seem content to live under the corrupt predations of our politicians. There has not been any robust call and effort to make our politicians more accountable. We have created the Integrity Commission regulation, in which we have placed all the corruption agencies under one body, but that body, by law, cannot tell the public of its ongoing investigation of corruption. Frankly, there now seems to be less transparency in such investigations than hitherto existed when these bodies were fragmented. For example, the work of the Contractor General’s Office, which has been subsumed under this body, has become pretty muted. It seems to have been emasculated.

The organisational structure of the new commission does not seem to give any assurance of lines of accountability to the people that can help them to judge processes and evaluate outcomes. If the Integrity Commission is working we do not know. At no given time do we know what they are investigating, what is the status of that investigation, and whether there is any important matter about which the citizens ought to be aware. Perhaps we are in a worse place than hitherto existed.

Meanwhile, corruption continues apace. What are a beleaguered people to do? First, we may consider the non-sexy question of constitutional reform. Gordon Robinson, who writes for The Gleaner, has been, like John the Baptist, in the wilderness in his call for constitutional reform. This space has occasionally called for this as well. Since 1962, we have not carried out a radical reform of our constitution. For 56 years we have introduced cosmetic reforms in particular areas, but none has been substantial enough to create a seismic shift in the way we do business.

The net result is that we have been subject to the rule of professional politicians who Samuel Johnson called the scourge of the twentieth century and no less the twenty first. Why can we not have a prime minister elected directly by the people? Why do we have to settle for a musical chairs contest from Jamaica’s ruling elite drawn from two powerful cartels to whom we genuflect in subservience? Why do all Cabinet members have to be members of the ruling political party? Why don’t we insist that they do what we elected them to do: represent their constituents in the people’s parliament? Why does the prime minister in Jamaica, under the Westminster model, have more power than the president of the United States?

These and other far-reaching questions beg to be answered. Of one thing I am sure: Do not expect the politicians to be robust in correcting what has served them well over the years. Despite the clamour for young people in our politics, I have no great faith that the present set is tethered to a new paradigm for change. Some are learning well from their elders. They too want to live well off the taxpayers’ dime, with all the perquisites and deference that enthuse Jamaican politicians. I will change my mind when I see differently, and by difference I mean serious, radical constitutional change. Will Damion Crawford, Mikael Phillips, Lisa Hanna, Julian Robinson and other younger members in the PNP lead this? Will Christopher Tufton, Robert “Bobby” Montague, Daryl Vaz, and others in the JLP?

If we want real democratic changes in the country sitting on the fence or sitting out the next election is hardly the way to go. Politicians hardly concede anything that is not demanded of them. It is time that we let them know that their shameless display on political platforms as to who is more corrupt will not be tolerated by a vigilant public.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the  Observer or stead6655@aol.com .