Dear Editor,
I read with much consternation the article contributed by your columnist,
Dr. Philbert Aaron in your July 1 publication.
I want to begin by saying that I am always pleased and proud to be
mentioned alongside Dr. Francis Severin, a young man (in relation to my own age)
for whom I have the greatest admiration for his intellect, his independence
and integrity, his national spirit and his demonstrated commitment to the
people of Dominica and to the national interest. I doubt very much that Dr.
Severin will appreciate being associated, by implication, with Dr Aaron’s
thesis that politics and truth are incompatible. I certainly do not
appreciate being identified, even by sly implication, with such a notion. I do
not claim to be without stain or blemish, but I absolutely reject any attempt
to associate me with what I consider to be Dr. Aaron’s machiavellian and
wholly unprincipled proposition that truth has no place in politics. It is
little wonder that, with that philosophy apparently guiding the actions and
postures of the Dominica Labour Party and the Government which that Party
leads, that there are so many, and such persistent, clouds of suspicion
over the actions of that Government.
I can interpret Dr. Aaron’s article in no other way than conveying that
honesty and integrity (truth) has no place in politics. Dr. Aaron says he is
“not sure when truth entered politics”. Can you believe that? He posits
that “maybe truth is the result of an obsession with the law.” So
perhaps the law also has no place in politics. Dr Aaron, the publicist for the
Government of Dominica and the Dominica Labour Party, is perhaps
re-emphasising Prime Minister Skerrit’s declaration that no law, no Constitution, will
prevent him from contesting the last election. I am not prejudging
whether Mr. Skerrit was or was not qualified for election, but the clear
implication of his statement, which I heard myself, is that he was unconcerned
whether he was breaking the law or not, in putting himself up for election.
If truth has no place in politics, then honesty, integrity and
accountability have no place in politics. That is certainly not the philosophy on
which Commonwealth Parliaments, of which our Parliament is one, operate. The
Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA), of which Dominica’s
Parliament is a member, and all our Parliamentarians and most past Parliamentarians
are also members, recently published a report entitled The Overseers. At
page 9 ff, the authors posit that “our whole system of government Ð
executive, legislative and judicial Ð is part of the accountability mechanisms
existing within a state, as are other components of civil society such as the
press and voluntary organisations.
“Our Parliaments themselves have developed a number of means of subjecting
the executive arm of government to accountability. Such procedures as
questions, urgent debates, private members’ motions, and adjournment debates
allow members to raise issues relating to the use or proposed use of
government power, to call upon the government to explain actions it has taken, and
to require it to defend and justify its policies or administrative
decisions.
“Accountability is about instilling or reinforcing an ethos of legal
compliance and efficient practice. It works by motivating people in ways that
are beyond their direct control to engage in desired conduct. At its
highest level, if a government is required to answer on the floor of the House
for its actions, that is a real incentive for ministers to avoid improper or
imprudent actions that are likely to be revealed by parliamentary scrutiny.”
The above quotes from the political organisation (not opposition but
parliamentary) the CPA, are in themselves sufficient to wholly debunk Dr. Aaron’
s immoral, unprincipled and ridiculous thesis; a thesis, however, which
seems to have guided much government action in the past few years. On the
religious/moral/integrity plane, we can turn to some powerful words of the
leader of the largest Christian church in Dominica, indeed in the world;
sentiments which would undoubtedly find favour with other Christian
denominations as well as other spiritual and religious groups.
Commenting on such cynical attitudes to truth as contained in Dr. Aaron’s
article, Pope Benedict XVI in Light of the World; a conversation with Peter
Seewald; Ignatius Press, (the Church, yes!) had this to say:
“But viewed in that way, man would not be capable of ethical values,
either. Then he would have no standards. Then he would only have to consider
how he arranged things reasonably for himself, and then at any rate the
opinion of the majority would be the only criterion that counted. History,
however, has sufficiently demonstrated how destructive majorities can be, for
instance in systems such as Nazism and Marxism, all of which also stood
against truth in particular.”
Would it be farfetched to conclude, in light of Dr. Aaron’s statements as
the public relations voice of the Dominica Labour Party and the present
Government of Dominica, that we are on the road to an elimination of ethical
values, of standards, and that they are concerned only, or mainly, with how
to arrange things reasonably for themselves? These are questions we must
ask ourselves urgently.
It is true that the Pope is a religious leader, and therefore would be
dismissed out of hand by Dr. Aaron. But let us take heed that Dr. Aaron’s
cynical and profoundly amoral, if not immoral view, is reminiscent of Pontius
Pilate’s offhand dismissal of Jesus, when Pilate exclaimed, “Truth? What
is truth?” Yet in spite of Pilate, and Aaron, Jesus is today, and has been
for 2000 years, and will forever be, the most powerful political figure in
history. (In saying this I do not imply that Jesus was or is only, or
primarily, a political figure, but there is no doubt that his message has had a
profound influence on the politics of much of the world for 2000 years.)
The author of the book, Speak Truth to Power, Kerry Kennedy, in his
introduction to the book, speaks of the men and women he portrays, in terms of “
courage, with its affirmation of possibility and change, is what defines
them, singly and together. Each spoke to me with compelling eloquence of the
causes to which they have devoted their lives, and for which they are
willing to sacrifice them ╨ from freedom of expression to the rule of law, from
environmental defence to eradicating bonded labour, from access to capital
to the right to due process, from women’s rights to religious liberty. As
the Martin Luther Kings of their countries, these leaders hold in common an
inspiring record of accomplishment and a profound capacity to ignite change.
” I only hope, and pray (yes, pray!) that Dr Aaron and his disciples have
not succeeded in so corrupting the minds of the majority of Dominicans
that we may abandon the virtues of honesty, integrity, commitment to truth and
devotion to our Christian religious convictions which have guided our
country at political as well as secular levels until recently and hopefully
until now.
Sir Brian G.K. Alleyne, S.C., KCN.
