The Tribune

By AVA TURNQUEST

Tribune Staff Reporter

aturnquest@tribunemedia.net

IN 1986, former Jamaican senator and Gleaner editor Hector Wynter said that cultural dominance should never deny press freedom. Three decades later, public dissatisfaction with the role that the media plays is still directly correlated to the level of access to information.

As the government runs down the clock brainstorming what is purported to be one of the most culturally significant constitutional referendums, I move that there should be a law on the official use of idioms. I reject the current environment that allows a government official to back pedal from any commitment with the simple phrase – however genuine – of “as soon as possible”. How soon is as soon as possible? I’m sure that is the eternal cry of muckrakers the world over, because the ordinary citizen is obviously satisfied with this figurative abomination of accountability and the time space continuum.

Here’s what I suggest: what if each political party is made to include a list of idioms, and the corresponding literal translations, in their campaign mandate. If you [government official] don’t know when an issue will be further developed or resolved, then who will? Perhaps we give the government far too much power and credit to assume that they are the ultimate determinant of legislative proceedings. My insight is meant to be a rant about the need for Freedom of Information, and my frustration with the entire process or lack thereof. Please bear with my unconventional focus.

In his address to Civil Society last week, Prime Minister Perry Christie postured that a culture had developed in this country. A culture that was the “anti-thesis of planning”, entrenched and pervasive. A culture that took advantage of the misinformed, a society where erroneous information can become truth. It is in this culture – fueled by mass tourism and guided by political agenda – that Mr Christie posits the significance of planning has been diminished. In a pervasive coup engineered by the public relations agents, the “macho politician” is revered at the cost of democracy. 

Isn’t it refreshing to have a leader that is so attuned to our delicate social structure? To be able to put a finger on the nation’s vices while simultaneously exploiting them, the true mark of leadership. Just as it is the task of journalists, not the media, to demand some form of answer to the question: when will a Freedom of Information Act be enacted?

Speaking in 1986 at the close of a three-day Press Seminar, Mr Wynter said: “In journalism, there are tenets common to all nations as are democracy and its concomitants of freedom and individual human rights, but there are bound to be certain variations according to the cultural environment.”

He said: “Yet cultural environment must never be used as an excuse or licence for the denial of freedom.”

On the sidelines of a planning conference to plot a course to developing a National Economic Development Plan, I put the question to Attorney General Allyson Maynard-Gibson.

Her statement for the record: “I have asked my team to pull the Act, to review it and to advise on how it would be implemented, what the issues are, and what could be implemented now if anything at all.” 

Mrs Maynard-Gibson added: “As the PM has already indicated, and as [media] has indicated to me, once we get that position paper it is our intention to form what could be a media committee to talk about how we could as a nation approach access to information.”

Mrs Maynard-Gibson declined to give a timeline for the position paper, or the larger plan to enact any form of the legislation.

Forgive me for being more than a little disheartened by this. 

To her credit, Mrs Maynard-Gibson is not wrong for declining to say more on the matter, and certainly not wrong for wanting to review the Act. 

The Act was first introduced in Parliament in October 2011 and a revised version was passed in the Senate in February 2012. It was a poorly baked cookie, delivered on the FNM’s election campaign platter. And if nothing more has been done on the issue, then I appreciate being spared the political guff. But that doesn’t mean I accept this shoulder shrug, and neither should the public. Not after three decades of waiting in handcuffs for the chance to access records free from political stigma, of waiting each election season for politicians to throw tripe down from privileged lofts.

Five months since her last public statement on the issue, the response is the same: “As soon as possible.”

I entered the ranks in September 2009. While I’m the first to say that I’m still not nearly as cynical as I should be, my proverbial “green”-ness has afforded me an outsider view of both our system of governance and domineering political archetypes. On another note, my meagre four years has also given me seniority in the field – a nip at the high turnover rate in the industry that I will leave right here. There is enough blame to go around for the stagnation in the industry.

And one more thing about the upcoming referendum. While I understand that Mr Christie’s remarks belie a much broader perspective, as he reiterated last week, much has been made about the importance to have political unanimity in the lead up to a constitutional mandate on gender equality – however narrow it might be. The reason given during his remarks at the IDB hosted workshop is that a failed referendum would be “embarassing” for the country, especially after having signed on to international treaties to this end. This approach to constitutional changes troubles me on two separate levels as a citizen, but since there has been no information released on the actual referendum I will speak solely to my issue with last week’s non sequitur. While I completely support the call for political unity on what anyone in the 21st century would readily consider as a commonsensical decision – gender equality should be a no brainer right? I take issue with any suggestion that my vote at the polls, or that of my peers, should hold some sort of moral weight outside of personal convictions on the questions before me. If my country has already collected on reform promises to the international community, shouldn’t there be greater confidence of public consensus? Further too, if proper regulations are enforced and ballots are uncompromised – wouldn’t that make for a successful referendum? A unanimous vote against changes would be a failure for the government, and its agenda, not the referendum or the people. The true failure at hand is indeed what Mr Christie espoused last week, public education. How can the public play a significant role in development if the masses are truly as “ill-informed” as we paint them? And then if you are to circumvent this culture, to quote IDB country representative Astrid Wynter, changes in education will take a generation to realize.

With Mr Christie’s remarks to the UN on the ongoing economic aggression against Caribbean states to get with the programme, clearly we don’t have that kind of time.

Let us help, as soon as possible.