Peter EspeutPICTURE THIS: I am teaching chemistry to a class of fourth-formers in rural Jamaica, and as I turn around from the blackboard, I see a boy throw a paper plane across the room. "James", I call out; "I saw you!" "It wuzn't me," says James, basically calling me a liar.
Picture this again: At work, the previously unblemished company vehicle comes back with a dent in the side, but the staff member who drives it claims, "It wuzn't me!"
A third scenario: A crashing sound comes from the kitchen, and when I rush in I see the fragments of a bowl on the floor. "It drop!" I am told by the only person in the room, blaming the accident on the bowl, which clearly had a life of its own, jumping out of her hands and throwing itself on the floor.
One of the most difficult things, it seems, is to get people to take responsibility for their actions. I don't for a moment think that this is a problem only found in Jamaica, but we seem to have a special difficulty in this area. It would be too easy to suggest that this national syndrome could be yet another legacy of slavery, where the goal of many slaves was to mash up the estate and subvert the system, and to avoid detection. Certainly this trait was in Anancy's character, and how this folk hero was able to shift the blame for his action away from himself, is the "moral" of many Anancy stories. There are reinforcing elements in contemporary Jamaica: insurance companies advise their policyholders never to admit liability, even if they are blatantly wrong.
In the recent number one hit parade song of the same name, a man is caught in flagrante delicto by his woman, and he still says "It wuzn't me!" Whatever the source, "It wuzn't me" is so much a part of our national psyche that it could very well be the real national anthem of Jamaica, the rallying cry that sums up our deep-felt instincts.
Of course in every case the person knows that it was them, that they are guilty. The claim that "It wuzn't me" is blatant deception, an attempt to avoid taking responsibility and suffering the consequences of their own actions. It is fundamentally dishonest, and this is why when I was a teacher I wouldn't let an incident like that pass without helping the student to own up to their actions, because when they learn to lie at such a young age, it can follow them into later life.
And the response to criticism is so often to avoid the issues raised and to "cuss" the person who raised them, telling them about their "maddah" or their "parts". Since you know you are wrong, you try to distract the onlookers by ridiculing the person bold enough to point out your faults. And then it often descends into a tracing match, and the person who tried to take the moral high ground takes the bait and is drawn down to the level of the guilty party. But the onlookers are not stupid, and they understand what is going on.
Do some men feel less than "men" when they admit their mistakes, when they apologise and ask forgiveness? Maybe for some, their inflated self-image forces them to project an I-cannot-be-wrong facade to the world, or see owning up as a sign of weakness. In the Christian tradition I adhere to, we believe that confession is good for the soul, and that owning up to one's sins and asking forgiveness (repentance) is essential for spiritual growth and salvation. In front of that judgement seat, "It wuzn't me" isn't going to get us anywhere with a judge who knows everything. But Jamaica is in so many ways a post-Christian society, which has abandoned Christian values and attitudes as a former "phase" in our national development, and moved on.
The official response of the government to the assessment of the human rights situation in Jamaica by Amnesty International (AI) is a good example of the "It wuzn't me" syndrome. Instead of dealing with the issues raised, the government has quite shamefully attacked the credibility and personal honesty of AI and its staff. And the government is also shamefully attacking human rights activists like myself, claiming that we support criminals and the activities of criminals. What foolishness! The world is watching, and understands.
Of course the problem of police brutality and state torture did not begin with this PNP government; previous JLP governments in the 1960s and 1980s and previous PNP governments did much the same thing, and it is a shame that AI did not target us from then, as things might not have got to this point. It was an astute political move for Mr. Seaga to have publicly condemned the Braeton killings and police excesses as if it is a new phenomenon, thereby exonerating his government in the 1980s and the JLP government of the 1960s which so repressed innocent Rastafarians; the JLP also knows how to say "It wuzn't me!" And the PNP cannot contradict them, for if they did they would be admitting liability also. Very astute! But I don't think this sort of approach will get us out of the mire we're in.
The connection between politicians and dons and guns and drugs in Jamaica is not just anecdotal, and both parties have been linked to garrisons and thuggery. I can recall both parties denying any such involvement on public media, while we know of gun salutes and prominent politicians who attend the funerals of persons of questionable character.
What Jamaica needs now is a Prime Minister who believes that the right values and attitudes need to be brought forward in the Jamaica of today: who believes that people should own up to their mistakes rather than saying "It wuzn't me!" We need a government that will admit to the wrongs in our local system of justice, who will take steps to reform it to introduce the right values and attitudes. We need a Prime Minister who will admit our tradition of police excesses, and who will create a new police force based on internationally accepted practices. We need a Prime Minister who will take us out of the garrisondon system and reintroduce the rule of law. Where can we find a Prime Minister like that?
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is the executive director of an environment and development NGO.
