The dilemmas of donmanship

Ian Boyne, Contributor

THE death and spectacular funeral of the reputed don William "Willie Haggart" Moore has deepened a national sore and has raised a number of issues yet unresolved.

But a few things are clear. One, it is clear that the days when leading politicians can boldly raise beer bottles in the air in cheers of dons are over. The days of blithely (no pun intended) anointing them as protectors of the community and local heroes without middle class approval are also over.

The widespread revulsion and disgust over the presence of the three top People's National Party Ministers at the funeral of "Willie Haggart" demonstrates the power of civil society and how even entrenched counter-cultural values can be successfully undermined by deliberate, persistent action of those in the dominant culture.

In short, what is known internationally as "shaming" is what is at work here. From now on we can bet - despite the "no apology" stance of Member of Parliament Dr. Omar Davies - that politicians from all parties will be very careful about being spotted at the funerals of those with messy reputations. The public reaction to the high-profile funeral of "Haggart", largely influenced by the media, should encourage civil society to unite on other issues to improve the social capital of the country.

Lesson

Another clear lesson from the reactions to the "Willie Haggart" death is that the behaviour of members of an organisation can retard that organisation or bring it into disrepute. Even the staunchest defenders of "Haggart" admit to his belligerent, intemperate nature; his aggressiveness and alacrity in "throwing licks" on people. That does not a don or a gunman make, certainly, but political parties, especially their youth arm, must use the "Haggart" example in their meetings to show how a party's solid achievements can be damaged by the careless, reckless behaviour of one member. Use the example to urge greater care with personal morality and public example.

If "Haggart" did not behave in a particular way, the high spending by itself might not have strengthened the belief that he was a don. "Haggart" was his own worst enemy in life.

Another clear fact is how past indiscretions can weaken present moral authority. The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) would have liked to jump in on this bandwagon of protest over the presence of the three PNP bigwig Ministers, but its proverbial tongue was tied because its own leader had attended the funeral and spoken glowingly of its own don, Jim Brown.

Others in the party have had their own association with dons and even the relative newcomer and middle-class-likeable Delroy Chuck has paid his respects at the funeral of a don. So the JLP could not gain any propaganda mileage from this one.

There are some issues which are not quite as clear-cut, but which we must explore dispassionately-though in circumstances like these that is nigh-impossible. But let's try. For one, what evidence do we really have that "Willie Haggart" was involved in criminality, and drug running as is widely believed? We know that not having a conviction is no guarantee of sainthood. Indeed, the dons by the nature of terror which they unleash and the degree of fear which they generate are free to roam the streets without any criminal conviction; safe in the knowledge that no fool would ever dare risk his and his family's life by speaking the truth in a court of law. Only the tough policemen, whom the human rights activists are pressuring, or other gunmen, can take care of them. Face that fact.

So the fact that "Willie Haggart" had only minor offences says absolutely nothing. However, the question still remains, how do we gain the evidence? Just on the basis of how many persons say they saw this or heard that? Is that enough for us as rational people to come to the conclusion that a person is a don? How many of us have not been victims of totally baseless rumours which refused to die simply because they were repeated often?

The media reported "Willie Haggart" as a don. How many persons did the reporters who began calling "Haggart" a don speak to? How systematic were the media investigations? In light of "Haggart's" widely acknowledged bad temper and irascibility, did the reporters factor in "bad blood" and resentment as factors influencing certain people's opinion?

The media's role is the relentless pursuit of truth and the protection of the rights of the people. "Willie Haggart" was a person whose humanity was not cancelled by the fact that he had some fatal flaws. He deserved the same right of being innocent until proven guilty like every other citizen, and others whom the human rights organisations have fought for so loudly.

I cannot rule out that he was a criminal and a drug dealer or, as some say, a man who stole from those who were drug dealers. But as someone who has spent a great deal of time studying philosophy (especially epistemology, which deals with how do we know that we know), I have to suspend final judgment on this one.

I have received stories from the community which make me inclined to believe the stories of "Haggart's" donmanship, but I have to honestly ask myself whether the "evidence" is really conclusive and, if not, whether the media have not done a great disservice to "Haggart" and his grieving family.

Conflicting signals

The president of the Jamaica Council of Churches, Dr. Howard Gregory, should perhaps have been more tempered in his comments. He was right to point out the wrong, conflicting signals which we send when we hold up criminals with their ill-gotten wealth as some kind of national icon. He was right to express outrage at the link which has existed between politicians and criminals. But on reflection and under cross-examination Dr. Gregory, also well schooled in philosophy and theological reflection, would have to admit that he was responding more to media hype and perhaps media slander against a man who cannot defend himself.

If we wax righteously indignant about due process, fairness and mouth "innocent-until-proven-guilty" statements of principle one moment, then in the next we can't be overturning all those principles for popular perception. The crowds shouted "Crucify him! Crucify Him!" to Pilate in reference to the innocent man Jesus. Haggart is no Christ but neither is the voice of the people always the voice of God.

The power which the media have must always be balanced by responsibility - and self-criticism. I, too, am more inclined to believe that "Haggart" was on the wrong side of the law, though he was never caught. But as a journalist and amateur philosopher I must be disciplined to know that popular perception does not automatically equal truth, nor does gut feeling.

The lesson of all this for the politicians is that the people with poor reputations are not really your friends. Your time must be spent trying to help them to walk the straight and narrow rather than merely use them for your political short-term ends.

Back to Commentary