Targeting public officers

Jamaica's political history is replete with examples of politicians of varying rank publicly vilifying and attacking the integrity of public officers with whom they have disagreements. Most times the disagreements centre on the politicians' inability to force the public officer into doing their bidding.

Among the recent examples in the life of the last administration were the subtle and overt attacks on the character of Contractor General Greg Christie and the questioning of his motives in his insistence that established procedures should be followed in the awarding of public sector contracts. While his detractors would suggest that their primary interest was to get around bureaucracy and time lapses, in very few instances did they suggest a way in which contracts could be awarded in a fair manner without them going to public tender and not as a matter of course favouring thos to the then party in power.

In recent times, the focus of the attacks has been the Electoral Office of Jamaica and in particular its director, Mr. Danville Walker. Neither Mr. Walker nor Mr. Christie is without fault. The electoral system over which Mr. Walker presides has kinksstill to be ironed out. But the attempt to call into question the entire electoral process and election results on the basis of the minor glitches identified and the non-counting of two boxes in the South East St. Mary constituency should be seen for what it is; ill-tempered whining. We believe and accept that the interest of democracy is best served when voters are able to cast their votes in secret and all votes are counted.

The EOJ has offered an explanation for how the two boxes with ballots cast by election day workers and members of the security forces came not to be counted and indicated its preparedness to make amends. It is a messy affair, but a plausible explanation. That does not negate the entire electoral process. Within the ambits of the law, these ballots should be counted to allow for the will of the people of that constituency to be determined.

On the other hand, to suggest that the system was as flawed as is being charged by those who lost, is to imply that all the local and overseas observers from Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE), the Organisation of American States and CARICOM - who gave the process the thumbs up - are all liars or entirely blind. This would also suggest that the members of the Election Commission are either complicit in the corruption of the system or are incompetent. We reject these charges as baseless.

Politicians need to learn the simple lessons of democracy in Jamaica - this country does not belong to any one group of persons. And we do ourselves a great disservice when we seek to undermine the integrity of those who have given and are giving invaluable service to deliver a clean and healthy electoral system to the people of Jamaica.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.