Dear Editor,
Has the time come for a code of political ethics in the evolution of Jamaican politics? Would the country stand to benefit from an ethically sensitised cadre of politicians? Might governance, accountability, and anti-corruption agendas be enhanced by an upheld bastion of ethics?
Just imagine the acceptance of clear guidelines for all who would seek to represent the people of Jamaica, in constituencies, ministries, Parliament, local government and the international stage. Then it would not be necessary to have a quarrel, if for example, a member of parliament authorised a self-loan.
Commentators and civil society could keep their mouths shut! Talk-show hosts could focus more on environmental issues, and political activists could spend less time and phone credit on calling several programmes per day.
A political code of ethics provides everyone, bar none, with an opportunity to be free from the shackles of the tribal code. Party leaders are free from the burden of quick accusations in relation to their decisions concerning personnel matters since the Jamaican political code is widely understood.
Loyal supporters of a politician can still admire that politician while accepting that he or she has breached the vital ethics code. Any breach thereof is followed by understood consequences.
Accountability would be sacred. The lines of communication, authority, and matters of protocol are without blur. Political sophistry disappears; and there is no doubt about what is truth.
Which would be preferred? A new political order where transparency is the order of the day and all are clear through the common use of this instrument of political ethics, or a preservation of the old way, where matters of national ethical concern roll for the nine-day wonder?
Any takers for open knowledge on the next round of political campaign financing? Or should we just say, "Jamaica, no problem?"
We are a democracy, and so a vote might be a good idea. Which of the following would you choose?
A) People need jobs, so forget ethical considerations for the time being.
B) Politicians are people too, and man haffi eat a food.
C) Civil society can always beat up dem mouth. Dem no have no job fi nobody.
D) The Parliament is the highest court in the land and anything the leaders want should be respected.
E) As long as whatever happens help people get a work, we should try to understand.
F) People can always talk. Let them call their favourite call-in programmes and complain.
Would holding our political stakeholders to a higher level of scrutiny have anything to do with enhancing our fight against corruption? Might the human rights concern for every Jamaican be safeguarded by a more accountable and professionally ethical political praxis? Choose this day where you would have Jamaica be.
Father Sean Major-Campbell
seanmajorcampbell@yahoo.com
Time for a code of political ethics
-->
Has the time come for a code of political ethics in the evolution of Jamaican politics? Would the country stand to benefit from an ethically sensitised cadre of politicians? Might governance, accountability, and anti-corruption agendas be enhanced by an upheld bastion of ethics?
Just imagine the acceptance of clear guidelines for all who would seek to represent the people of Jamaica, in constituencies, ministries, Parliament, local government and the international stage. Then it would not be necessary to have a quarrel, if for example, a member of parliament authorised a self-loan.
Commentators and civil society could keep their mouths shut! Talk-show hosts could focus more on environmental issues, and political activists could spend less time and phone credit on calling several programmes per day.
A political code of ethics provides everyone, bar none, with an opportunity to be free from the shackles of the tribal code. Party leaders are free from the burden of quick accusations in relation to their decisions concerning personnel matters since the Jamaican political code is widely understood.
Loyal supporters of a politician can still admire that politician while accepting that he or she has breached the vital ethics code. Any breach thereof is followed by understood consequences.
Accountability would be sacred. The lines of communication, authority, and matters of protocol are without blur. Political sophistry disappears; and there is no doubt about what is truth.
Which would be preferred? A new political order where transparency is the order of the day and all are clear through the common use of this instrument of political ethics, or a preservation of the old way, where matters of national ethical concern roll for the nine-day wonder?
Any takers for open knowledge on the next round of political campaign financing? Or should we just say, "Jamaica, no problem?"
We are a democracy, and so a vote might be a good idea. Which of the following would you choose?
A) People need jobs, so forget ethical considerations for the time being.
B) Politicians are people too, and man haffi eat a food.
C) Civil society can always beat up dem mouth. Dem no have no job fi nobody.
D) The Parliament is the highest court in the land and anything the leaders want should be respected.
E) As long as whatever happens help people get a work, we should try to understand.
F) People can always talk. Let them call their favourite call-in programmes and complain.
Would holding our political stakeholders to a higher level of scrutiny have anything to do with enhancing our fight against corruption? Might the human rights concern for every Jamaican be safeguarded by a more accountable and professionally ethical political praxis? Choose this day where you would have Jamaica be.
Father Sean Major-Campbell
seanmajorcampbell@yahoo.com
Time for a code of political ethics
-->