When the noise drowns out accountability

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Anyone who has spent time in a Jamaican market knows that the loudest vendor is not always selling the best product. Sometimes, the commotion is carefully designed to distract buyers from looking too closely at what is actually on offer.

That same strategy seems to have found a home in our politics.

politically motivated

Whenever uncomfortable questions arise, the public is often treated to a familiar performance. Attention shifts from the issue itself to arguments about motives, political conspiracies, or partisan advantage. Legitimate questions are dismissed as “politically motivated”. Conduct that should be judged by clear standards is defended because of party loyalty. The debate becomes about who asked the question instead of whether the question deserves an answer.

The treatment of reports from the Integrity Commission (IC) is a troubling example. Instead of allowing the findings to be considered on their merits, public attention is too often diverted to attacking the commission, questioning its motives, or discrediting its work whenever its conclusions are politically inconvenient.

This should concern every Jamaican, regardless of political affiliation. Oversight institutions exist to strengthen democracy, not to serve political interests. If we weaken public confidence in those institutions every time they produce findings that make political leaders uncomfortable, what message are we sending? That accountability is acceptable only when it affects someone else?

It raises an important question: Who benefits when oversight bodies lose public credibility? Is it the IC, whose effectiveness depends on public confidence? Or is it political leaders who face less scrutiny when the referee is portrayed as the problem, rather than the conduct under review?

beyond criticism

No institution should be beyond criticism, including the IC. Constructive criticism, grounded in evidence and due process, is essential in a democracy. However, there is a significant difference between improving an institution and undermining public confidence in it simply because its findings are unwelcome.

The real danger is not the political noise itself. The danger is that, while our attention is fixed on the noise, accountability quietly slips away. Jamaicans deserve leaders who answer difficult questions, respect independent oversight, and apply the same standards to allies as they do to opponents.

The loudest stall in the market is not always selling the best goods. Sometimes, it is simply trying to stop us from inspecting them.

Chelly-Ann Jones-Segree