The explanations offered by the Minister of Finance Dr. Omar Davies, for his attendance at the funeral of William "Willie Haggart," Moore are more self-serving than adequate.
Dr. Davies, writing in the Observer newspaper, has given a portrayal of the late Mr. Moore that is as one-dimensional in its approach as that which he has accused the media of presenting. He has charged that the media in characterising the deceased as a "don" has neglected to mention the role that he and others played in bringing peace to war-ravaged areas of the South St. Andrew constituency. In his continued eulogising of Mr. Moore, Dr. Davies speaks of his "influence" without sharing with the wider public the source of that influence.
The picture that emerges is of an almost feudal arrangement where dons, area leaders and others with influence are able to exert that influence to bring others in line. Integral to that arrangement is the sidelining of the State as the properly constituted authority to maintain and uphold law and order. Dr. Davies tells us of the very commendable efforts made by the late area leader and others to bring about peace.
But are there any situations that he has omitted to inform us of where that influence has been used for less laudable purposes? And is Dr. Davies in his seeming unquestioning acceptance of the ends as justifying the means, offering this model as the answer to the problems of the inner city?
If the reputed lifestyle and the ostentation of his funeral are anything to go by, the late Mr. Moore was a man of means. Did Dr. Davies, with his intimate knowledge of his South St. Andrew constituency ever wonder about or question the source of that wealth?
In an earlier editorial which spoke to the issue of the society breaking the nexus between crime and politics, we suggested that teachers, doctors other professional groupings, the Church and the business community should in effect ostracise those politicians who continued to maintain that link. After reading Dr. Davies' comments we are even more convinced of the merits of that proposal.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
