Colin Steer, Associate Editor - Opinion

The Washington Post some years ago published a cartoon depicting two old men seated on a park bench, talking. One of them had an air of despondency. His companion asked him what was wrong. "The government is going to raise taxes, " he said.

His colleague responded: "I don't believe it. What makes you say that?"

The first declared: "Washington has flatly denied it."

The seconded commented:" O boy. They are going to raise taxes."

The questioning of the justification and motive of the Prime Minister in declaring a public state of emergency in the wake of Hurricane Dean has its roots in past abuse of powers and a deep-seated public cynicism. The result is controversy at this time. Some people contend that the national situation just does not warrant such a declaration. Fo there was some damage - extensive in some places -the country has experienced even more severe infrastructure destruction during continuous heavy rains at other times during the year. Additionally, there is little evidence of any threat to public safety. To others, the PM's action was an entirely appropriate pre-emptive move given past experiences with widespread looting in sections of the Corporate Area in the wake of a hurricane. Frankly, the current controversy reflects our seemingly ingrained propensity for contention.

Twisted thinking

One would expect that natural disasters and national crises would automatically cause us to set about tackling the immediate concerns of cleaning up and helping those worst-affected to get back on their feet. But what do we find? Several hours have already been spent second-guessing the Prime Minister's decision. To some people, any mention of a state of emergency, of any kind, evokes the spectre of 1976 when the Michael Manley administration used the powers of the state and state agencies for devastating strategic and propaganda effect against his political opponents. There is always the fear that once again, this tactic will be used, perhaps, with the same result.

There are, of course, thousands of Jamaicans for whom this is not their main area of concern. They want to be assured that such emergency powers are implemented with due consideration to all the facts and with regard to the consequences locally and internationally. No doubt, the Government's action will be under greater scrutiny at th of an election campaign. For those who hold the reins of power have not often demonstrated that the public good is their primary concern. That may not be true in the instant case with regard to the hurricane, but unfortunately cynicism and scepticism are not easily dismissed.

Regaining trust

Our governments have worked hard over the years to ensure that their motives are questioned at every turn. When trust is breached, whether in interpersonal relation-ships or in relation to governance, itis not easily regained. That is why P.J. Patterson's attempt at implementing a 'values and attitudes campaign' foundered. It was not the media's fault as some like to claim. But the Patterson administration could hardly lead such a campaign when it had perfected the art of government by sleight of hand.

Our incumbent administration and those who may follow, will have to work hard to regain public trust. Too much emotional capital and goodwill is expended in conflicts, real and imagined.

In the current situation, if the primary concern was preserving public order then the PM should have consulted the Opposition to preserve the sense of a united effort in addressing a potential national crisis. But at the same time, unless there is evidence of attempts to abuse the emergency powers again, using hurricane damage as a cover, then the PM should be given the benefit of the doubt even while we remain vigilant.