Ian, Boyne

Contractor General Greg Christie is doing a commendable job of driving fear in the hearts of public servants, annoying government officials, offending People's National Party supporters and standing as a bulwark against the very scent of corruption.

He must be loudly supported by all patriotic Jamaicans, and if he seems a little strident, overbearing or pitching for the headlines, all of that is forgivable in the fight against the monster of corruption.

But, when all the noise and laudable public advocacy has died down, if Greg Christie is not operating in a broader cultural context inimical to corruption and impropriety, then he will not achieve enough.

Fail To Go Beneath The Issues

We get easily excited about burning public issues, but have little proclivity for patient analysis and rigorous thought. We fail to go beneath the issues. Trafigura gets the adrenaline up - as any allegation of corruption should - but we are prone not to probe for deeper issues. Are we building a culture in Jamaica which is promoting morally strong, ethically courageous and principled people? Are we building a culture where people put ethics before egotism, principle before pleasure and morality before money?

Pragmatists And Utilitarians

Apart from the rhetoric and grandstanding, how much support is really being given to the underlying fight for accountability and propriety in public affairs?

Not just in Jamaica, but increasingly in Western society, there is an aversion to discuss ethical issues in a philosophical, moreso religious context. We have all become pragmatists and utilitarians - without understanding the tragic consequences of this for our living together.

We have accepted as commonsense a rugged individualism, atomism and a hedonistic way of life, and yet we want a society where others respect our rights, meet their obligations and are committed to telling the truth and behaving ethically. Why should people be committed to some universal principles when in the particular instance it might not be in their interest to do so? Why should people tell the truth under all circumstances, especially when their backs are against the wall?

When material possessions, status, power and consumerism are the highest values, why should people sacrifice for the common good, go the extra mile for others, put up with inconveniences and lack just to follow some ancient principles of integrity and honour? In other words, if we accept a culture which elevates power and pleasure as the highest principles and virtues, how can we produce politicians who are always looking out for our interests rather than their own narrow interests?

Pardon me for not automatically believing that swapping one set of politicians for the other is the answer to our problem of corruption in Jamaica. Pardon me if others believe this position is merely a convenient, even corrupt rationalisation for "PNP corruption"; a thinly veiled attempt to whitewash the many sins of the PNP Government, "The most corrupt Government in the history of this country", as Audley Shaw continually reminds us. I am less interested in the debate as to who is the most corrupt than the larger one of the materialistic culture which the Jamaica Labour Party would still have to work with if it becomes the next Government.

If Bruce Golding gets the opportunity to make his next Christmas broadcast from Jamaica House but has around him people who are not strict in their moral commitments and not inflexibly devoted to right-doing, then how much better a position will we be in? Is there anyone reading this who is so na•ve to believe that the people who would do corrupt acts and try to get away with lining their pockets and enriching themselves and their friends are limited to one party?

Of course, what one needs are systems and procedures to deal with corruption and enough teeth in our legislation to harshly punish the corrupt. Yes, I agree "systems, not men", as Edward Seaga put it so well some years ago. But we have ingenious ways of breaking any system-and getting away with I it- so it would do us well to inculcate a moral culture in the country to go along with the systems to be enacted to deal with corruption. I am not posing one over the either. It's not either-or. It's both-and.

I am concerned that we put too little emphasis on moral issues and philosophical concerns. Indeed, we are contemptuous of philosophy. Go to any cocktail party of the rich and famous or to any of the parties and "dos" of the upper classes and the trendy written up by people like Chester Francis-Jackson, Novia MacDonald-Whyte and Christene King, and talk about philosophy or religious ethics and you would be looked at as queer(in the old-fashioned sense of the word! The modern sense would be quite acceptable in those circles!).

Our elite and intelligentsia don't take ideas seriously, yet these are the same people who wax unrighteously indignant, even using some choice expletives, to denounce the corruption in Government and the society. In a dog-eat-dog world; in a world of Social Darwinism, why shouldn't people just look out for themselves and why shouldn't those who have power use it to their own advantage? Why stick to this queer notion of continuing to drive a Nissan when you can drive an X-5 by accepting bribes?

Why continue to live in Havendale when you can live in Cherry Gardens, Norbrook or Stony Hill by undertaking a corrupt deal? Away with old-fashioned morality, borne of outdated religious convictions!

Our middle and upper classes have not thought through the hedonistic, materialistic values to which they are enslaved and which they promote through their advertising, media and educational system. Robert Goldwin puts it well in his chapter on "Rights, Citizenship and Civility" in the book Civility and Citizenship published in the Liberal Democratic Societies series.

Says Goldwin: "There is little or nothing in the doctrines of liberalism or democracy that has to do with public propriety. In every society there is the encouragement for citizens to do their duty and to be civic-minded, but the content of it does not come from liberal democratic teachings. Those teachings emphasise the welfare of the individual, not the common welfare".

If you live in a society where no one "rates" or respects you unless you have money, power or status, how much encouragement are you given to choose honesty and decency over corruption?

Granted there is a connection between levels of corruption and levels of poverty. And societies which tend to do better at creating wealth also tend to do better on the corruption index. One is granting that. But studies in advanced industrial countries are showing weakening levels of traditional morality and an increasing tendency to put private interests over public interests and to lie and cheat when it is felt one can get away with it.

What must be borne in mind is that even though religion is not as prominent in the industrialised countries, those counties have had a history of religious orientation and influence, and their cultures have been profoundly influenced by religious values So even though secularism is strong in the advanced societies, they still have a foundation of religious values, and, in fact, are parasitically living off that heritage while scoffing at religion.

Says Goldwin in his essay : "The fact is that liberal societies are not purely so, but all have a heavy admixture of other kinds of regimes, with principles unrelated and often contradictory to the principles of liberal democracy." This is a very important point: The crusading zeal against corruption, for accountability, propriety and civic values cannot be grounded in the utilitarian philosophy which undergirds liberal democracy.

Hear Goldwin again: "The principles of duty, honour, public service sacrifice, charity, patriotism, respect for elders, respect for authority all have their sources in other times, other regimes other ways of thinking about civil society".

We have been living off our religious heritage for a long time but it is wearing thin now. People are becoming more selfish, more narrowly focused on private interests, more obsessed with getting ahead. The politicians come from this society with the same set of values. They want power, they want glory, and they want the pleasure of a high status. And unless they have a firm moral grounding, they will do almost anything to achieve those narrow goals.

Intellectually, I could never commit to fanatically support any set of human beings, however, they constitute themselves. I am not a True Believer. We need systems suited to the kinds of beings whom we are and that is the genius of the American Constitution and the concept of the Separation of Powers. The Founding Fathers of America were profoundly influenced by religious philosophy and had an abiding skepticism about human nature. The Marxists' overly optimistic and therefore unrealistic anthropology ultimately caused communism to crash. Adam Smith understood what Karl Marx did not.

And that is why Golding's ideas for constitutional reform, which he has now downplayed in the quest for power and to be relevant and pragmatic, were so important. And which is why Portia Simpson Miller's emphasis on the need for personal transformation and spiritual enlightenment are so critically important-if she could get her party and Government to embrace them. Constitutional reform - 'systems' - and personal transformation - 'men' - must go together. Unfortunately, no one party adequately embraces the two.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email him at ianboyne1@yahoo.com