One of the obvious limitations of being encased in a tent of human flesh is the inability to read directly what is on a person’s heart. I believe it is a necessary limitation of the human condition, a check and balance on some of the most egregious and vile excesses of which human beings would be capable if they had the ability to read precisely what people were thinking.

We can make guesses and interpret correctly what a person may be thinking, but to be able to say with certainty is not a power with which we are endowed.

Where am I going with this excursion into philosophy? There were two events over the past two months that have detained public commentary on whether two prominent personalities in the society should apologise to the nation for behaviour in the public sphere which many view as reprehensible. They are obvious, but I start first with that of Greg Christie, executive director of the Integrity Commission.

In a nutshell, the Integrity Commission sent a report to Parliament regarding certain activities of Prime Minister Andrew Holness in the matter of public works contracts done in his constituency. This was sent with a sealed cover letter stating that he should not be charged for such activities. Due to some murky and obvious incompetent communication on the part of the commission, the public was not advised of this, but instead were told that Holness was going to be charged, even when a letter from the commission’s director of prosecution stated categorically that no charges would be proffered against him.

Needless to say, this touched off a domestic and international brouhaha which severely damaged the reputation of the prime minister and cast aspersions on the country’s integrity. In the meantime, Christie tweeted about the report without ever mentioning that Holness would not be charged, thus giving legitimacy to the falsehood that had enveloped the nation and the international community.

Christie has claimed that he did nothing wrong. At a meeting with the government oversight committee of the Parliament, he averred that he was a mere conduit who finds tweeting an effective way to have information flow to the public. If he is a mere conduit, why should beleaguered taxpayers be paying in the region of $15 million for him to work on the commission? If he is just a pipeline, should we not revisit the quality of the water flowing from his conduits? But back to the larger matter.

Was Christie aware of the letter that exonerated Holness? If the answer is yes, how appropriate was it then to retweet information, thus giving the impression that Holness should be charged? When asked about the appropriateness of his actions, a question which had to be repeated about three times by Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck, Christie refused to answer. He was obviously caught between a rock and a rock. If he had answered in the affirmative, he would have cemented in people’s minds that his actions were veritable. If he said it was inappropriate, he would have put a further nail in his own coffin as people would have been further enraged.

In any event, Christie does not believe he did anything wrong, despite the great hurt brought to the prime minister, the country, and the integrity of the commission he heads. But we will come back to this.

Let us move to the other matter, that of Dr Nigel Clarke’s lack of mea culpa for referring to Leader of the Opposition Mark Golding as “Massa Mark”.

In a convoluted apologia, Dr Clarke tried to convince the public that he has nothing to apologise for in his reference to Golding. Let me say that I do not believe the minister of finance has a racist bone in him. What he indulged in Parliament was mere political theatre, which is not strange to members of the House, past and present.

But many in the society, including Golding, think otherwise, and he and his fellow parliamentarians on the People’s National Party (PNP) side walked out of the Parliament in disgust. He did not convince many, at least on the independent side of the political ledger, that his treatise on the cultural efficacy of the term “massa” made sense. Neither did he convince them that he has nothing to apologise for. Many believe he does.

Which brings me back to how I started this piece. Both Christie and Dr Clarke believe their actions do not require apologies. In the case of Christie, whose behaviour facilitated grave reputational damage to the prime minister and the country, he might have convinced himself that he was carrying out his function. But it is clear to the fair-minded that constantly retweeting information based on something he had to know was false showed not only poor judgement on his part, but led people to question the veracity of him continuing as executive director of the Integrity Commission. A fair concern, I must add. The least that he could do is acknowledge that he might have done harm, at least to the prime minister, and that he is man enough to say he is sorry.

This sentiment is true also of Dr Clarke. As I averred above, we cannot read his heart, and each person is left to accept or reject his explanation. Dr Clarke is no fool, and certainly he should see why people are enraged by his reference to Golding, a white man, as “massa”. It conjures up in the minds of Jamaicans, products of a plantation society, all kinds of images, none of which are commendable. Dr Clarke might not have been aware of these images when he made the remark, but his comments did not seem to be off the cuff but carefully worked into his speech, which would make the matter of his lack of judgement more bewildering.

Common sense would dictate that to double down and refuse to even acknowledge that he might have incensed sensitivities with his remark is befuddling to me for someone who should know better. We have no way of knowing, despite his explanation, that he was referring to the plantation label of “massa”, especially since Golding is a white man. What I believe the society could accept is an explanation or an apology of this order: “After having reviewed the matter I can see how my remarks could have been interpreted as a negative attack on the Opposition Leader Mark Golding. That was not my intention. I meant no harm in the use of the word. Therefore, insofar as my remarks have caused harm, I wish to apologise for the use of the word and for any hurt caused to anyone by its use.”

This would have killed the matter there and then or at least mitigated its continued negative impact on the minister. Dr Clarke would have risen to a higher estimation in the eyes of people. There is nothing to beat a well-meant apology. Contrary to the opinion that what he said was in the context of a silly political season and he was playing to his base, I believe such an apology would have helped him politically. Now he is low on the totem pole in the eyes of many Jamaicans who once thought highly of him. Is it too late to apologise sincerely? Maybe not, but there is never a wrong time for a sincere apology given from the heart.

It is the hardest thing to apologise for anything, but it is necessary for relationships to move on. It exposes our vulnerabilities as it goes to the very centre of our ego, which screams out for defence. Let us hope they have the fortitude necessary to rise above their present irritations.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; The Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.