We have to keep a steady focus on the responsibility conversation that the prime minister desires. It must not be allowed to be forgotten or shelved. Under normal circumstances, this is a conversation that takes us into several areas of our everyday existence. In times of plenty, a responsible way of life is one of the pillars of sustained progress; in lean times, it is one of the powerful instruments of recovery.

At every point, it helps to provide light in the search for justice and, further, it is indispensable in the movement towards the creation of the just society.

So, these are lean times, times of crisis proportions. These are times when there is the requirement to budget prudently within the household; the family and the individual are driven to conserve. Conspicuous consumption, a debilitating habit in times of plenty, is fatal in times of crisis. Now is a time for careful, studied planning.

The responsibility conversation must include the role of government in projecting and evangelising meaningful programmes for energy conservation. Where are the measures towards that end?

Jamaica has not yet identified any real and quantifiable resources of energy, the lifeblood of almost every conceivable activity that we are obliged to undertake for our survival as a community of people. It is certainly required, therefore, that, from his or her earliest years, every child in Jamaica should be 'indoctrinated' in the cause of the careful use and the conservation of energy. Let that conversation begin!

Special circumstances

Let it begin in the children's programmes on radio and on television; in the school curriculum from the stage of the early childhood educational exercises; let poems and plays be penned, and songs be written and voices raised to the glory of the proper and prudent utilisation of energy in our special circumstances here in Jamaica. The conversation must begin, and be pursued with fun and with substance.

Now, there is a most worthwhile and far-reaching conversation to be anchored and encouraged by the ministries of Education, Youth and Energy. How about community, zonal and parish competitions to pave the way for that conversation to ripen eventually into a way of life? And this is a most propitious moment in time to push such an initiative; for lessons learnt in times of distress are usually the last to be forgotten and, more so, if the conversation is never allowed to be suspended.

The conversation relating to the laws, rules and regulations that must govern the responsibilities of the media practitioner has gathered momentum in recent times. And long may it remain so. After all, never in the history of mankind has the fourth estate enjoyed the power that it wields today.

Like in most spheres of activity, we are ever likely to hear declarations concerning the rights and freedoms of the person or entity; in the case of the media: the right to freedom of expression, the right of the people to be informed, and freedom of the press. These are inescapable rights, interests, benefits and privileges in any ordered, democratic society.

And yet, the responsibility to seek out, listen to and report on the views of 'the other side' is a rule that is as old as Adam and Eve. This discussion must also include the fact that any omission to contextualise the spoken or written words of an individual, if such words come to be reported on or made a conversation piece, may amount to "the most unkindest cut of all".

Twelve years ago, then Prime Minister P.J. Patterson, speaking in the House of Representatives, in announcing a public holiday to mark Jamaica's qualification for the FIFA World Cup tournament in France, said, among other things: "The law is not a shackle to enslave; it is a tool of social engineering". This is a short sentence of a mere 15 words which first-formers would have little difficulty in committing to memory.

First six words

Since that time, however, the first six words have been lifted out of the sentence and repeated almost, if not, daily, thereby distorting and savaging the meaning of what he meant to convey.

The persons who have been guilty of this unkindness include journalists, political commentators and talk-show hosts. And all attempts by him and others to set the record straight have simply been ignored by these individuals who wield so much influence in the public domain. Their mantra remains: the law is not a shackle, according to Patterson.

The truth is that in explaining that the law is meant to be "a tool of social engineering", he was tapping into a stream that flows in what is referred to as the sociological school of jurisprudence. The beginnings of a fruitful conversation would lead the public, who have a right to be informed, towards a glance at jurisprudence, which is the science and philosophy of law - the study of law and the ethical values used in defining what the law should be.

The sociological school is one of the four "schools of jurisprudence", the others being the natural law school, the historical school and the national law school.

The celebrated American jurist Roscoe Pound was a prominent figure in the sociological school of jurisprudence which is largely a product of the 20th century. Its approach to the analysis of law differs from that of the other schools in that it is less concerned with the nature and origin of law than with its actual functions, utility and end results.

The proponents of sociological jurisprudence seek to view law within a broad social construct rather than as an isolated phenomenon distinct from and independent of other means of social control and other disciplines that have a direct impact on society.

They contend that law cannot be applied in the abstract; rather, account should be taken of each specific circumstance, as well as economic and social realities. In other words, the law is "not a cookie cutter"; it must be adapted to become "a tool of social engineering".

So, far from the meaning that has been so unfairly purveyed by the media practitioners and commentators that the law is not a shackle and can be whimsically disobeyed or ignored, what Patterson said and projected was that we should focus on the functional aspects of the law and not its abstract contents. That is a conversation that points to the link between law and development.

When rights are exercised by any person or entity, the responsibilities that are owed to other individuals and the public must not take second place or be disregarded. Fairness requires no less if the conversation is not to be short-changed.

Role of Parliament

The prime minister has wished for a conversation on the role of Parliament and, I apprehend, the responsibility of parliamentarians to be faithful to the Constitution and laws of Jamaica, first and foremost. A member of the House of Representatives has tabled a motion calling for each person now sitting in that chamber to declare their status in relation to whether allegiance is owed elsewhere.

That, I would have thought, was a matter of the greatest public importance to be addressed with utmost urgency. It would mark the beginning of the real conversation as to how to prevent the integrity of Parliament from being further compromised in this regard; yet, it languishes on the Order Paper of that House.

The prime minister has now declared that he has given instructions for a "constitutional motion" to be filed in the courts targeting certain members of the parliamentary Opposition who are thought to be in breach of the constitutional provisions. And there has long been talk that the numbers on the government side far exceed the four against whom election petitions have been filed.

I do not believe the prime minister to be on good ground in the instructions that he says he has issued. The Constitution itself specifically provides for the procedure to be adopted in these matters.

According to Section 44: Any question whether any person has been validly elected or appointed as a member of either House, or any member has vacated his seat therein or is required to cease to exercise any of his functions as a member, shall be determined in accordance with the provisions of any law for the time being in force in Jamaica and, subject to any such law, in accordance with any directions given in that behalf by the chief justice.

The only such law in force in Jamaica, pursuant to that provision, is the Election Petitions Act. And further, in these matters, the decision of the Court of Appeal is final. A constitutional motion or a declaration sought by this route would certainly be appealable to the Judicial Committee in London, thereby amounting to an attempt to circumvent the stricture laid down by the Constitution in relation to the determination of questions as to membership.

Matters to be resolved

Issues concerning the integrity of the composition of parliament are in essence matters to be resolved by parliament itself. In making that determination, it is assisted by the power that is given to the courts and that power is exercisable only within the time frames and other procedural requirements that are laid down in any law that has been passed pursuant to the constitutional prescription.

These matters are ultimately required to be addressed by parliament; they are the responsibility of the persons who sit in the chambers, week in and week out. If they cannot be relied on to take such a foundational role and obligation with the seriousness that is called for, what does that portend, one may ask, for the health of the responsibility conversation that the prime minister seeks?

A.J. Nicholson is opposition spokesman on justice. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.