Like the rest of society, Jamaican politicians need to subscribe to, and adopt, the Lanny Davis Doctrine. The Lanny Davis Doctrine is simple. It requires complete and early truth-telling. It requires of people, in general, but of political leaders in particular, to “Tell it all, tell it early, tell it themselves, but tell the truth”. Truth-telling, in this regard, is substantially dissimilar from hiding behind the great walls of legalism.

For context, Lanny Davis worked in the Clinton White House, between 1996 and 1998, as special counsel to President Bill Clinton. It was Davis’s job to deal with the scandal-hungry White House press corps and to act as Clinton’s media spokesman. Davis elected the “tell it all, tell it early…” mantra as part of his strategic crisis management programme. Perhaps the political outcomes of the 2005 Trafigura Affair, and the 2010 Manatt/Dudus extradition saga would have been considerably different had the respective Jamaican governments adopted the Lanny Davis doctrine of “telling it all, and telling it early…”

By “telling it all”, Lanny pushed for full disclosure of all facts, especially the bad ones, those that would most likely cause embarrassment and prove politically harmful. His rationale? Get it out, over and done with, in the shortest possible time. The longer it takes to get to the bottom of an issue or to complete certain tasks, the greater the likelihood of things going awry.

For instance, the degree of difficulty increases when someone is asked to run around an Olympic-sized swimming pool with an egg in a spoon than if he were asked to transport it from one side of a six-by-six room to the next.

Does the strategy of getting out harmful and embarrassing information as quickly as possible sound crazy enough for rational people to question? Yes, it does sound crazy, but follow me for a minute. Journalists are supposed to use their common sense, apply critical thinking skills, avoid becoming the news story and, finally, endeavour to ask the right questions however “nasty” those questions may appear. Full and quick disclosure of the facts, good or bad, kills the potential for a story spiralling out of control. It also diminishes the prospects for unwarranted scepticism. It also removes and lessens the possibility for sensationalism and guarantees that it is the news that gets reported and not a reporter’s opinion or judgement on a particular issue.

Telling it [the truth] early can be both pre-emptive and proactive. This is so because any politician who deprives the political opponent of getting to the political marketplace before him or her is a smart and successful politician. After all, “early bird catches the most worms”. An effective politician who does not struggle to tell the truth or who tells it early has the distinct advantage of staving off the political opponent as well as preventing the scandal-hungry media from embellishing humiliating stories for the sake of ratings.

All that a smart politician needs to do while telling the truth and telling it early is to provide additional supporting evidence or documents that corroborate his revelation, then make himself or herself available to the media for further questioning. The smart politician would be certain to point out to the media corps any document or negative information they might have missed during in their perusal. The overarching objectives of this approach is to ensure that the media is adequately supplied with information, however trivial its nature or value. Which politician in Jamaica do you think would be inclined so to do?

Telling the truth yourself is dissimilar from not seeking counsel (legal advice). Getting legal advice ahead of telling the truth yourself is not only wise, it could guard against possible self-incrimination. Yet, guarding against self-incrimination is not synonymous with obfuscation. There are people who are so in love with the sound of their voice, and are less inclined to engage the brain before lips, that they could talk their way to prison, even if innocent. Telling the truth yourself means the politician should be the one to face the public (directly) and not hide behind e-mail, press releases or surrogates.

Telling the truth should be automatic for all — politicians and non-politicians alike. It is always easier to start with the truth because foundations on which relationships, vision, aspirations, hope, cases and causes rest must be undergirded by unshakeable pillars of integrity and honesty; otherwise they could come tumbling down. Furthermore, there are no carrying costs for truth-telling because, unlike untruths and half-truths, one does not have to “warehouse” the truth as one would for lies.

Although not an absolute requirement, sometimes truth-telling requires context; it requires context because it has to be told within a certain construct that demands slight adjustments to certain words, phrases and parts of speech. For instance, if I am retelling a story that includes countless profanities to a group of young children, out of respect for their innocence, and because I have a responsibility to protect them from undue coarseness, I would naturally amend the story to exclude the crudities. The premise of the story would still be intact, but with some details eliminated for good cause.

So where is this going? Here is where it is going. The “instant” questioning, from William Mahfood, president of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ), of those who he claims are “…now choosing to raise concerns about the assets and personal property of others and did not take up the matter in Parliament or with the Integrity Commission…” is not entirely true or fair. For, while William is correct about directing issues of sorts to the appropriate institutional structures such as the Parliament and the Integrity Commission, he is not correct about the “suddenness” of the concerns raised with respect to Andrew Holness’s home. We must get in the habit of calling a spade a spade and not conveniently conflate issues.

The truth is, inquiries have been coming from Finance Minister Dr Peter Phillips regarding the construction of the Opposition leader’s Beverly Hill home from as early as October 2015. As to whether Andrew’s house should be part of an election campaign is an entirely different issue. My own take on the matter continues to be that unless the People’s National Party (PNP) or the finance minister has evidence of impropriety, then the PNP and Dr Phillips should ‘leave the yute’s house alone’, as it is not a legitimate political issue. What would have happened had Holness told his truths early, told them all, or told them himself, from as early as last October or November? Mark you, outside of Parliament, Holness is under no obligation whatsoever to respond either to the PNP or Dr Phillips.

The PSOJ president is spot-on, however, in his characterisation that some are “…now choosing to raise concerns about the assets and personal property of others…” as it relates to the retaliatory strike from Holness with respect to his inquiry of Dr Phillips’s personal holdings, but more specifically focused on how he acquired his current home. Take note of the swiftness of Dr Phillips’ response, coming as it did roughly 24 hours after the questions were posed by Holness. If we apply the most modest interpretation of the Lanny Davis Doctrine, Dr Phillips would have easily met the “Tell it early, tell it yourself, and tell the truth” threshold.

However, like Holness, Dr Phillips would not have met the “tell it all” standard, because neither one provided documentary proof to support the numbers provided in their skilfully crafted responses. Remember, part of telling it all requires the supply of evidence, documentary proof such as deeds, mortgage satisfaction certificate, established lines of credit, etc. Transparency does not start or stop with skilfully worded press releases; it requires a greater degree of satisfaction and the burden of proof rests with the individuals issuing the various statements. We may accept as “gospel” the two statements; we may “kick up our heels” in celebration of what appears to a pyrrhic political victory for one side or the other, but because we are asked to exercise common sense and reasonableness and in the absence of documentary proof, significant doubts remain.

What if, in his response, Dr Phillips, the so-called chief “inquisitor”, invited the media to his home, laid bare his title (deed), mortgage satisfaction certificate, loan vouchers, etc, along with any other relevant paperwork for media scrutiny? Would there be any lingering doubts about the bona fides of his affidavit-like response? What if the Opposition leader had attached similar proof to support his lengthy and nuanced press release? Wouldn’t that have been the political masterstroke of the 21st century?

Telling it all, telling it early, telling it yourself, but telling the truth goes beyond removing lingering doubts, it helps to restore believability and improve trust. If, for example, on a visit to Cross Roads, in St Andrew, you met two men, standing across from the Mother’s patty outlet, one selling a dozen Mother’s beef patties for $140 and the other man selling a dozen Mother’s beef patties for $700, which of the two men would you most likely purchase from, knowing the price of a single patty to be $140?

A reasonable person, one who is not necessarily motivated by unreasonable discounts, but with the capacity to engage critical thinking, would immediately apply common sense. He would most likely ponder the possible reason(s) behind sizeable price differential between $140 and $700 per dozen for the same product. Questions of inferior quality of the cheaper patties, theft, tricks, etc would feature prominently in the decision to buy or not to buy. For reasonable people, there are some things that do not make sense. In the end, the seller whose patties appear to be more reasonably priced at $700 per dozen would most likely get the sale.

It is like going downtown Kingston and seeing a man with a huge chicken coop, yelling, “Chicken for sale! Buy one today, get one next year!” Yet, all he has in his over-sized cage is one half-dead baby chick. The circumstances surrounding the disclosures about the various mansions underscore the importance of public figures upholding the Lanny Davis Doctrine because some things just do not add up or make sense. And, as my grade teacher once said, “One plus one does not always equal two; sometimes it equals an idea, but it is understanding the complexities of that idea that makes the difference…”

Burnscg@aol.com