Dear Editor,
Over the past few weeks the strength of Jamaica's democracy has undergone some testing. This tends to happen more at election time when the pressure is on our elected representatives, political parties, and those seeking to represent the people in a new Parliament.
Fundamental to democracy is good governance. The ability to govern effectively in a democracy depends on the people's trust and confidence in those who govern them. To inspire that trust and confidence there has to be transparency, accountability, and truth exhibited, especially by political leaders, whether they form the Government or Opposition. It is obvious there was and still is ignorance regarding the issues of accountability and transparency, which have now been fitted with opaque lenses.
The escalation in Jamaica's murder rate is a great concern to us all. Accordingly, it was timely that the commissioner of police, who heads up the primary government agency tasked with arresting crime, be called before a parliamentary committee to answer questions, be subjected to criticism, and share his plans with us.
However, when Commissioner of Police Dr Carl Williams appeared we got a rather clumsy presentation from him, and the remainder of the committee's deliberations with him were done in camera because there might be information that would not be in the interests of national security. The commissioner of police is under no legal or moral obligation to share with us information so sensitive it could compromise our national security. It is, therefore, strange and most unacceptable that the media was effectively barred from a significant portion of the proceedings. One is conscious of the fact that there is always a balance that has to be struck between full and truthful disclosure to the public and disclosure of information that ought to be withheld that could compromise current or future security operations or activities. However, I believe the reasons for withholding information have to be compelling, and the balance tipped in favour of public disclosure. We are having too much of "cannot hear that evidence", "cannot disclose", "cannot disclose identity" because it is not in the interests of national security. Who is it that is determining what is and what is not in the interest of national security? We should be careful of the overplaying and abuse of this measure as is it is setting some very dangerous precedents that threaten truth and with it transparency.
We are a relatively young democracy; let us not undermine the future of democracy by smearing the glasses of transparency and truth with too-smart-for-ourselves acts and not overplay such measures. Good governance depends on trust of the people, and trust is quickly lost where there is no transparency and truth.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
'Not in the interest of national security?' Says who?
-->
Over the past few weeks the strength of Jamaica's democracy has undergone some testing. This tends to happen more at election time when the pressure is on our elected representatives, political parties, and those seeking to represent the people in a new Parliament.
Fundamental to democracy is good governance. The ability to govern effectively in a democracy depends on the people's trust and confidence in those who govern them. To inspire that trust and confidence there has to be transparency, accountability, and truth exhibited, especially by political leaders, whether they form the Government or Opposition. It is obvious there was and still is ignorance regarding the issues of accountability and transparency, which have now been fitted with opaque lenses.
The escalation in Jamaica's murder rate is a great concern to us all. Accordingly, it was timely that the commissioner of police, who heads up the primary government agency tasked with arresting crime, be called before a parliamentary committee to answer questions, be subjected to criticism, and share his plans with us.
However, when Commissioner of Police Dr Carl Williams appeared we got a rather clumsy presentation from him, and the remainder of the committee's deliberations with him were done in camera because there might be information that would not be in the interests of national security. The commissioner of police is under no legal or moral obligation to share with us information so sensitive it could compromise our national security. It is, therefore, strange and most unacceptable that the media was effectively barred from a significant portion of the proceedings. One is conscious of the fact that there is always a balance that has to be struck between full and truthful disclosure to the public and disclosure of information that ought to be withheld that could compromise current or future security operations or activities. However, I believe the reasons for withholding information have to be compelling, and the balance tipped in favour of public disclosure. We are having too much of "cannot hear that evidence", "cannot disclose", "cannot disclose identity" because it is not in the interests of national security. Who is it that is determining what is and what is not in the interest of national security? We should be careful of the overplaying and abuse of this measure as is it is setting some very dangerous precedents that threaten truth and with it transparency.
We are a relatively young democracy; let us not undermine the future of democracy by smearing the glasses of transparency and truth with too-smart-for-ourselves acts and not overplay such measures. Good governance depends on trust of the people, and trust is quickly lost where there is no transparency and truth.
Colonel Allan Douglas
Kingston 10
alldouglas@aol.com
'Not in the interest of national security?' Says who?
-->