It is ironic that Andrew Holness, prime minister, leader of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), and mentee of the late JLP leader and Prime Minister Edward Seaga, finds himself — in an election year, to boot — caught in the crosshairs of public scrutiny about his business enterprise(s), the non-certification of his statutory declarations by the Integrity Commission (IC) and accusations of illicit enrichment. Seaga faced similar wide-scale controversy in scope — not design — in 1987, in light of his sole involvement with his Jamaican- based multi-million dollars Gardens of Carinosa tourism business venture while he was the sitting prime minister. The IC was not in existence then, and no accusation of illicit enrichment was ever attached to his business undertaking.

“I have no regrets in creating a project which I believe will bring Jamaica much credit,” insisted Prime Minister Seaga at the time, “and I have done so with strict observance of the rules and traditions to ensure that it is a model of propriety and integrity.”

The irony of this narrative is further amplified by the fact that, in 1987, as now, the country was promised “growth and prosperity” in the foreseeable future by the ruling JLP Administration, while the unofficial loyal Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) saw it as its bounden duty, in the scheme of Westminster politics, to raise questions of principle, propriety, and possible abuse.

Although 38 years separate these similar occurrences, the genius of the Westminster model of politics that we practise here in Jamaica allows for the dismissal of any posture of offended innocence on the part of those occupying high political office, while issues directed at said office are raised in a manner calculated to discomfit political opponents.

As was the case with Seaga’s business venture, the public discourse accompanying Holness and his business ventures and involvement as a going concern creates the space for several pertinent questions of governance within the framework of the Westminster model of governance to be raised that need to be settled by law once and for all.

The IC was designed largely to meet this objective, but the pushback it has encountered from powerful sectional interests within the governing political directorate regarding the scope of its undertakings, especially involving Prime Minister Holness, suggests that there is still some way to go in this regard.

As such, whichever of the two main political parties occupying Jamaica House in the remainder of the 21st century, there will be the need to confront the question: Should the occupants of high public office in Jamaica engage directly in private business when, obviously, conflicts of interest are likely to arise when information acquired ex-officio might be employed for private gain; when the influence of office might bear on the outcome, whether or not the holder intended it; when, in the nature of things, line are so difficult as to be virtually impossible either to draw or to disentangle?

For in some countries, high office-holders are required by law, in the full glare of transparency, to put their businesses into trust and to distance themselves from day-to-day decision-making in connection with them for the duration of their term in office. There is no doubt that similar hard-nose legislation along this line in this country would eliminate envy being elevated into a political principle. More importantly, it would provide the perfect contrast of secrecy and openness in our liberal democracy.

Liberal democracies, lest we forget, are assumed to be open societies in which the State and social institutions, as human designs, are subject to rational scrutiny.

Strictly speaking, then, the problem faced by Seaga retrospectively in 1987, and that faced by Andrew Holness in the present dispensation, in the final analysis, has next to nothing to do with either’s guilt or innocence of any particular act of wrong-doing.

What it concerns fundamentally, is the difficulty, if not impossibility, of drawing clear and sharp distinctions, not only in their own minds, but in the minds of others, having to make decisions affecting their business interests between, on one hand, Seaga and Holness as prime minister, and on the other, Seaga and Holness the proprietors and businessmen.

Given this paradox, both men, whatever the ultimate assessment of their contribution to nation-building and national leadership, are destined, ironically, to be remembered, in so far as their involvement in their business interests whilst commanding prime ministerial power is concerned, as being victimised by their own power.

Everton Pryce is a former Hubert H Humphrey Fulbright fellow.

Everton Pryce

Andrew Holness