We live in an age of towering cowardism (that’s a new word) — or cowardice, the more recognised word. Cowardism is manifested in the obeisance of Cabinet ministers who are afraid to challenge their boss; the friendly reporting, or sometimes non-reporting, of people in the media who seek to protect privileged positions; church members who are unwilling to take a stand against destructive actions of their leaders; and public servants who are afraid to question policy decisions and other actions of governments even when it is evident that the policies are flawed or the actions contrary to rules.

Now let’s be clear, cowardism is not the greatest sin, nor courage the only virtue, but the default thinking of many that “coward man keep sound bone” has perhaps done more harm to organisations and societies than any other handicap that people possess. I submit that the long-awaited new day in public life that we desire in Jamaica will only come when, as citizens, employees, professionals, church members, and family members, we acquire the courage to hold ourselves and each other accountable.

There are some reminders about courage that we would do well to ponder. Not only is it the case that the capacity and willingness to display courage does not mean that one is a paragon of perfection, but it also is not the case that the display of courage will release or protect one from misfortune, being misunderstood, or from facing derision, setback, and abuse. But more profoundly, as Nelson Mandela reminded us, “The brave man is not he who does not feel afraid, but he who conquers that fear.”

Profiles in rank cowardism

I have been lamenting the fact that, despite promises of a new day in politics and public service in Jamaica, we still seem to be a far distance from real transformation. Efforts to reform the public service, for example, seem to suffer from lack of will and, as a consequence, lack of resources. Promises of a new type of politics, one that eschews divisiveness and one-upmanship as well as party above country, seem to be more talk than action. But transformation is still realisable. If it is to happen, however, we need people who are courageous.

There have been countless profiles in cowardism in our politics and public service in recent times. Some years ago in the trial of the late J A G Smith in relation to funds from the Overseas Farm Work Programme, the then permanent secretary was asked about the advice given to then Minister Smith. The essence of the painful response was that a permanent secretary could not be expected to direct the minister how to conduct himself.

A more recent act of cowardism is that involving Police Commissioner George Quallo, who one day expressed support for a Jamaica Constabulary Force-commissioned report on how the force should treat the recommendations of the commission of inquiry into the 2010 security forces operation into Tivoli, but changed his tune the next day. The report was prepared with the input of a retired high court judge and thus would have benefited from rigour.

Perhaps the most troubling recent display of lack of courage, on the part of public servants, was the dereliction of duty by the National Works Agency (NWA) in relation to the multimillion-dollar de-bushing programme of 2016. In the face of what the NWA knew — or ought to have known — was Cabinet’s violation of the procurement guidelines, the NWA failed to insist that those guidelines be followed or to go on record in stating its objection.

Those who lead must set the tone, but the troubling fact is that cowardism is not only present among the lower ranks of senior leadership in our country, it exists at the very top, and we must have the courage to call it out for what it is.

Cowardism on crime

In August 2016, news emerged that ‘witness protection’ was removed from two men who were involved in a criminal case related to a Member of Parliament. Minister of National Security Robert Montague undertook, after some public pressure, to investigate this matter. In response to a suggestion that “to advance public confidence in the process and the findings, …two or three members of that high-level advisory team which you appointed (be) … asked to (investigate)….”, Minister Montague appeared to agree uttering these words: “An excellent suggestion. Thanks very much.”

Over a year later the public has been told nothing about that matter, yet the same minister is calling on youngsters to get involved and not remain silent on crime. Addressing scholarship recipients at an awards ceremony recently, the minister, according to reports in the media, said:

“If you don’t get involved, somebody else is going to get involved. Silence is not golden. In Jamaica, silence is deadly… Something happen to your friend, and you say nothing, then when they come for your other friend you still nah say nutten. Then they going to come for your other friend, and you still nah go say nutten until they come for you, then there will be nobody to say nutten…So I urge you to get involved…”

Is the minister being sincere? Is the minister suffering from amnesia or convenient outrage? I am minded to counsel the minister with this childhood lesson, “The light that shines farthest shines brightest at home.”

Cowardism on corruption

Did it occur to anyone that the prime minister’s silence on the Office of the Contractor General’s (OCG) report represents a serious danger to law and order, probity, and good governance, and may well amount to aiding and abetting corruption?

I struggle with the prolonged silence of the prime minister on that damning report. In my view, his silence can be understood to mean one of two things. It is either that the prime minister is not uncomfortable or disturbed by the contents of the report (which would mean that he, in effect, endorses the actions described by the OCG), or the prime minister is afraid (coward) to touch the matter as he is unable to call his ministers to account. I fail to think a third possibility would be that the prime minister instructed the ministers to act the ways the OCG said they did or may have done. It is an option I am not prepared to countenance.

But as troubling as the silence and inaction of the prime minister are, he is not unique. In some respects he is perpetuating some of what has been wrong in our government; but his perpetuation is doubly disappointing given his repeated promise to be a transformational leader.

What’s even more disappointing is our culture of leaders wittingly or unwittingly aiding and abetting corruption (due to cowardice or other factors). Let us ponder for a moment what it would mean for accountability in public office in Jamaica if former prime ministers P J Patterson and Portia Simpson Miller had taken decisive action in relation to errors, exuberance, or violations by their Cabinet ministers. Let us imagine what it would mean if when Prime Minister Bruce Golding improperly got himself involved with the “Dudus” extradition affair and placed the country at risk, his Cabinet ministers had, in the interest of Jamaica, banded together with one voice and invited him to a meeting and told him he must go.

If we had those precedents, Holness would not have the luxury of remaining silent in the face of a damning report — which Minister Chang has consigned to the category of a non-event with his dismissive remark, “Cabinet will look at it.”

But not only would Holness not have the luxury, aided by a largely pro-Government connected media, of remaining deafly silent, he would have had to take action to show to those errant ministers that their conduct is unacceptable.

A large part of the reason Holness is unable to take action in the multimillion-dollar de-bushing scandal is similar to that which faced Golding in the Manatt/Dudus affair. Both of them were/are part of the actions that were/are in question from the outset. So in the same way Golding’s instructions to Karl Samuda to investigate who hired the US law firm Manatt, Phelps and Philips to defend “Dudus” against extradition was an instruction to investigate himself as prime minister, so could action against Cabinet ministers in the de-bushing scandal mean action against the chair of the Cabinet — if the OCG’s report is correct.

In Part 2, I will discuss the latest cowardice assault on good governance in our country that has emanated from the country’s executive. I will also explore some profiles in courageous leadership, which profiles I hope will serve as examples to those of us who seek to serve and lead.

Dr Canute Thompson is head of the Caribbean Centre for Educational Planning, lecturer in the School of Education, and co-founder and chief consultant for the Caribbean Leadership Re-Imagination Initiative, at The University of the West Indies, Mona. He is also author of three books and several articles on leadership. Send comments to the Observer or canutethompson1@gmail.com.