Ian Boyne
THE MEDIA and the public seem more concerned about what the present court case involving the contestants to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leadership is doing to the image of the party than the merits of the case itself.
The public might be excused for this implicit disregard for the truth and issues of justice and integrity, but in the media's case, it is unacceptable.
Media practitioners are not supposed to be public relations agents for the JLP, worried about what this latest episode of infighting and public wrangling is doing to its credibility. The media's primary concern should be to investigate the bona fides of the case, take an in-depth look at the charges of the Pearnel Charles campaign vis-a-vis the position of the Golding camp and to enlighten the public on the substantive issues.
HAND-WRINGING
Rather, what we are having is hand-wringing and catastrophising by talk-show hosts and columnists, obsessed with the damage being done to the image and 'good name' of the JLP, our Government in waiting. What we need from the media is not just the kass-kass and tracing matches between the combatants.
What the media could do for the public is to put some diligent, astute reporters on the case to do a serious, full-length investigative feature looking at the arguments of both sides, trying to make sense of them, and getting the opinions of lawyers and seasoned political people outside of the JLP.
To date, if you ask anyone in the public or perhaps even in the media to explain to you the gravamen of the dispute between Charles and Golding as it concerns the delegates list, no one would be able to do so clearly. This is because we in the media have dropped the ball on this one and have chosen the lazy way out: Just dole out the sensationalist interviews and the histrionics, laced with the stinging commentaries between.
BACK-STABBING
'Oh, yeah, here goes that quarrelsome, divisive, backbiting, back-stabbing, and envious and hopelessly disunited group of people again. The JLP man dem always a fight 'mongst themselves, to put it in street language. Bad-mindedness on the part of Pearnel Charles. The man knows he can't beat Golding and together with Henry and Dabdoub, members of the old, dying, decrepit guard knowing they have no place in the new order, he is just trying to mash up things or make it hard for poor Mr. Golding. Pure wickedness and selfishness on the part of Pearnel Charles, whose ego towers over his diminutive size. Hope Golding dem cut him neck, as it were, in the future. Finish with him once and for all'.
EXAMINING THE ISSUES
I don't get the impression that the journalists and others who are enraged by Pearnel Charles' court action feel that way because they have seriously examined the issue and have determined that Pearnel has absolutely no justification for his position. The impression I am getting from reading and listening to my colleagues is that Charles must just shut up and "run wid it"(meaning the list) because he knows he has no chance to win against Bruce Golding and, besides, the country desperately needs a viable alternative to the PNP Government. Only PNP apologists would be happy with what's going on the JLP. Therefore, if Pearnel meant the JLP and, indeed, Jamaica, any good he would stop his nonsense and allow Golding to take over the reins of the JLP for the good of everyone.
Pearnel Charles has made his most unpopular move of his political career. I have never heard as much venom, bitterness and resentment thrown at one man in a long time. Labourites and non-Labourites who are looking for an alternative to the PNP are furious at and disgusted with Pearnel Charles.
UNPOPULAR PEARNEL
Any poll taken now would prove that Pearnel is the most unpopular man in Jamaica today. (Omar has received a well-needed respite.) No, I am not naive. Would I swear that if the Golding camp had cut a deal with Pearnel to facilitate his becoming Opposition Leader we would be hearing his high-sounding rhetoric about standing up for the disenfranchised? No, I would not. Pearnel, more politically ambitious than every other Labourite, would probably rationalise his way around "running wid it".
But follow my logic: Whether Pearnel himself would sell out the alleged disenfranchised delegates for political spoils is irrelevant to the issue. Whether he himself is just an opportunist who tried political blackmail and is now behaving like a petulant child is besides the point. If there is genuinely an issue of justice and integrity; if the constitu-tional requirements of the party are not being followed and slackness had been allowed over the years and has now become routinised, the whistle-blower deserves commendation, even if his whistle-blowing came after his personal ambitions had been frustrated.
There are criminals and people of ill-repute who because they were cut out of a deal decide to 'come clean' and 'bawl out' on the other scoundrels. Would you be more concerned about showing that these persons had self-serving, less-than-honourable motives for coming forward rather than the fact that criminal activity has taken place?
SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES
On this issue we in the media have shed more heat than light. Just ask the next person you talk to how much he/she knows about the substantive issues which led Pearnel to take the party to court, and you will see what a good job the media have been doing on this issue. Sensationalism is easy. Investigative reporting and informed analysis constitute hard work.
In the past week I have spoken privately and confidentially to both James Robertson and Pearnel Charles. I believe both spoke very openly and fully with me. I have a very good relationship with James Robertson and have a lot of respect for him. Charles is an open book: Charles does not hide his ambitions or agenda. Everybody knows he passionately wants to be Prime Minister of this country. He has a very high opinion of himself and feels he has a great deal to contribute. As I told him this week, any list of delegates that is chosen even if he himself were to choose one Bruce Golding would thrash him street and lane. Pearnel Charles has not one ghost of a chance going up against Bruce Golding.
BRUCE CANNOT LOSE
Readers will recall my article, "Why Golding will Win" some months ago. Readers will also recall that I have been consistently pro-Golding and have openly said he is the best man to lead the JLP. The vast majority of the people in this country JLP, PNP and even non-voting Jehovah's Witnesses would agree with me.
When it was announced that Golding was coming back to the JLP in 2002, and when the media were sceptical about his return, talking about how much he would have to give up and give in to Edward Seaga, I was the only senior journalist publicly backing him (See my 2002 article 'The JLP's Golding Opportunity').
SHORT-SIGHTED
I pointed out that my colleagues were short-sighted: "Bruce is not thinking about October 16 (the election date). For the first time he has a real opportunity to have power within five years. Whatever happens in October, Bruce Golding cannot lose. History will absolve him and the short-sighted will see the game as it unfolds."
The game has unfolded. Bruce Golding is irrevocably on his way to the leadership of the JLP. Pearnel might delay him for six months. But the cup will not fall from him.
Bruce Golding is my choice for JLP leader.
But, as a journalist committed to fairness, balance and truth, I must not allow my personal preferences to cloud my journalistic judgment. I must instinctively be interested in any charge that something is wrong with the delegates' list. No matter from which quarters the cries come. No matter the motives.
I hear people who are normally so vociferous about the horrors of bogus voting and disenfranchisement now frivolously dismissing Charles' claims without seriously telling us why those charges have no basis. The problem with organisations is that after a while they develop a cultic, authoritarian ethos where to question the hierarchy is to commit treason and to be worthy of death and expulsion. You must protect the image of the organisation at all cost, even at the expense of truth and justice. I hear journalists now openly calling for Charles' proverbial neck to be cut, and instructing Golding that he should provide no pardon for Charles, Henry and Dabdoub.
CHARLES' LEGACY TO THE JLP
Charles could be sacrificed. But as he has said poignantly, one thing he has accomplished, and this will redound to the good of internal democracy in the JLP and strengthen the democratic ethos in the country, is that from now on, no leader will dare spare any effort in ensuring that delegates' lists are absolutely, indisputably clean.
The JLP's image might be damaged but, in my view, the protection of democratic rights is far more important than the image of any organisation. Better to be overzealous to protect the right of one voter than to cower under organisa-tional and intimidatory tactics to 'run with it'.
I found it laughable to read Golding supporter Delroy Chuck in his Wednesday column: "It is simply downright treacherous that matters internal should be leaked to the Press and the perception delivered that the party is in constant turmoil." When those undermining Seaga were busy doing that for years, where was the self-righteous indignation of Delroy Chuck?
MAINTAINING DISCIPLINE
Now that the new leader is about to be enthroned, we hear talk of 'cracking the whip', maintaining discipline and punishing 'sabotage', but When Edward Seaga complained about these very matters, we in the media said he was a One Don dictator who could brook no opposition. Donkey seh world nuh level.
What if the courts proved that Pearnel did, indeed, have a case? I fear that for many they would only be even more incensed, outraged and bitter that Pearnel caused this on the party.
To hell with justice and one-man-one-vote. The paramountcy of the party is what matters. If the courts vindicate Pearnel, that would be more reason, many feel, to string up him up and crucify him. We should tek sleep and mark death.
* Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. You can send your comments to ianboyne1@yahoo.com or infocus@gleanerjm.com
