Orville Taylor
It is 'indimancipation' and we should be feeling great pride after 170 years of legal and physical freedom from slavery, although we are still deeply mired mentally. Furthermore, we now celebrate 64 years of parliamentary democracy, 60 years of Olympic participation, and 46 years of political independence. Yet, many persons who represent us seem vaccinated with anti-truth serum.
In past weeks, principals have spoken in one order and as clansmen, taking exception to a reference by the prime minister to extortion in their schools. An unwise comment, analogies were made between their charging of inflated auxiliary fees and the criminal act. Somewhere in the debate is a feeling that someone is either under or over-representing the amount of money given to schools and the administrative and academic expectations that principals have to fulfil. There is some deception or delusion, because the confused public was convinced and concluded that the contents of the free education promise means no fees. Clearly, they evaluated the pros but not the cons.
While this is ensuing, the truth is being trampled as elephants fight. At present, the leadership battle between Portia Simpson Miller and Peter Phillips of the opposition People's National Party (PNP) has got uglier. Roger Clarke, the lone parliamentary 'Portiaphile', has taken 'red poll' position and threatens to 'buck' the solid rockers into pebbles. Allegations abound regarding the attempts made by each contender to unite the party, but the suggestion is that each camp is being disingenuous. Now, a figure of $30,000 is being reported as being the price for which delegate votes are being bought or sold. Of course, this is denied. What is untrue - the fact or the figure?
Difficult to believe anyone
In a party that told us that there was nothing hanky-panky going on with the Dutch firm Trafigura, that improperly made contributions to its campaign, it is difficult to believe anyone. By the way, the word 'lie' is exactly in the middle of the word 'believe'. Party stalwart, Paul Burke, who resigned in disgust, knows the truth. If his memory and veracity are genetically akin to his religious sibling, then we could trust what he says. However, he is not talking.
In the pursuit of truth and honesty among those who represent us or work on our behalf, we might just be well suited to have compulsory testing. Sportsmen and women, whose dishonesty might embarrass us, have to submit to routine scrutiny. Why shouldn't our politicians be made to take veracity tests? Our athletes do it.
As with our first Olympic games in 1948, when we went one-two in the men's 400, with the fast-finishing giant Arthur Wint beating the smaller and quicker-starting Herb McKenley on the line, it is Usain Bolt and Asafa Powell in the 100 metres. With all the suspicions of drug cheating, both these and the other élite athletes based here in Jamrock, have had regular, routine and random drug tests. The International Association of Athletics Federations (IAAF) reveals that each has been tested more than four times last year. This is more than 200 metres specialist Wallace Spearmon, 400 metres champion Jeremy Wariner, and Shawn Crawford, who was in the drug-tainted camp of disgraced coach Trevor Graham. Similarly, Veronica Campbell-Brown, Bridgitte Foster-Hylton and Shericka Williams have done more tests than American Torri Edwards, who has one positive test and ban to her 'debit'. Lauryn Williams and Allyson Felix have also done fewer tests than our golden 'girlz'.
Nonetheless, we have found a positive test of one athlete's 'A' sample in our midst and it is suspected that he is neither an élite nor a home-grown talent. Still, only when the 'B' sample is returned positive can we say that there is guilt. However, it presents enough doubt for the administrators to act. All in all, there is much basis for confidence in the cleanliness of those who compete in the name of Jamdown.
'Lie detectors'
So, what would be the test for our politicians and public servants, given that there is no physiological evidence to reveal lying? Indeed, it was suggested on a recent television programme that polygraph or 'lie-detector' tests ought to be given to workers in the government sector. Since these are required for some elements of the security forces and there is a perceived epidemic of corruption, especially in the revenue collection agencies, why not?
Director of Public Prosecutions Paula Llewellyn was quick to point out that polygraph tests are not admissible as legal evidence although they can be used departmentally. The fact is, when it comes to the employment contract, an employer only needs 'a belief leading to a reasonable suspicion of guilt', in order to dismiss or not employ in the first instance. When it comes to conviction, one requires 'proof beyond a reasonable doubt'.
Polygraph tests are bastardised versions of diagnostic tests, where baseline data regarding, heart rates and sweating, among others, are measured. If when certain questions are asked it shows that one's heart speeds up or one sweats too much, then the conclusion is that the subject is lying. However, psychologists and physiologists have shown that oftentimes, the negative indication is due to nervousness or embarrassment. Imagine armed policemen asking you your name and you nervously blurt, "56 Parkway Lane, Sar!" Moreover, martial artists and others who practise mind/body control have shown that they can 'beat the box'.
Even more ironic is the revelation that one of the renowned 'experts' of polygraph testing, Dr Edward Gelb, does not have a PhD as is claimed in his résumé. Wow! So, who do you trust?
Let's continue the debate, but right now, I just want to emancipate my mind from the mental slavery of public deception.
Dr Orville Taylor is senior lecturer in the Department of Sociology, Psychology and Social Work at University of the West Indies, Mona. Feedback may be sent to orville.taylor@uwimona.edu.jm or columns@gleanerjm.com.
