Whatever else it may be Jamaica is seldom boring. In few places is human nature’s eternal battle between reason and instinct thrown so regularly into stark focus. We may be one of the world’s most stable liberal democracies, but our behaviour regularly echoes the most ancient law of existence – might is right.

Two recent incidents have illustrated very clearly this great dichotomy in the Jamaican soul – the Braeton police shootings and Willie Haggart’s funeral. For both showed that whatever the theory may be, the gun remains a chief arbitrator of events in this country.

Whatever one’s initial feelings were about the Braeton killings, it has become pretty clear that the police at the very least failed to follow proper procedures, and a full investigation is certainly called for. Yet recent polls and anecdotal evidence suggests that many and perhaps most Jamaicans still support what the police’s actions. As a lady heatedly explained to me – “Look, I know that what the police did wasn’t completely right. But I would have done the same thing in their place. We all know what would have happened if they had succeeded in capturing those guys alive. Any witnesses to the murders they had committed would have been too scared to testify – because we all know that anyone who had dared to show their face would have been gunned down by these guys or their friends. So these murderers would have gotten off scott free and gone back into society to kill again. I can tell you one thing, none of those Braeton guys will ever shoot another innocent person again!”.

And who can disagree with her? These days most Jamaicans are scared to give evidence even in petty crimes for fear of retaliation either from the accused or their friends. And judging from the almost weekly reports of potential witnesses in court cases being gunned down, this fear is fully justified. One fundamental requirement for the trial by jury system to work is that all participants should be fully free to tell the truth and nothing but the truth. This is patently not the case in Jamaica today. (And can the Minister of Justice tell us why not one in twenty Jamaican police stations have two way mirrors for the identification of suspects?)

Whose fault is this? Well Jamaica is undoubtedly a violent and often brutal place. Even if all non-domestic murders were miraculously eliminated overnight our homicide rate would still be almost twice the USA’s total murder rate and about five times that of Britain’s. The truth, unpleasant as it may be, is that far too often Jamaicans have a penchant for swift vengeance unfettered by such niceties as due process. The dancehall, a most accurate barometer of the common man’s view, has repeatedly reflected this sentiment in songs like “Informer Fe Dead” and “Petty Thief Fe Dead”.

But swift as the law of the jungle may be, it is frequently brutal and inaccurate. Far too often lynch mobs seek blood atonement rather than justice and become intent on making sure that someone pays for the crime committed, even if they are not fully sure their identified target is the real culprit. The whole point of written laws is that they make the procedures for establishing the guilt or innocence of anyone accused clear and unequivocal. And the most important role of the state in a liberal democracy is to uphold the rule of law, for this is the very foundation of civilization.

Now I have always had a great regard for Dr. Omar Davis, who may well be the ablest PNP finance minister since independence. In cleaning up the mess left to him by his predecessors he has, as they say, been given a basket to carry water. He has made mistakes, as finance ministers of poor countries with limited options are wont to. But he has at least been consistent in his approach, which is probably the most important element in the area of national economic policy.

Dr. Davies has always struck me as a highly intelligent man of integrity. Certainly no one would accuse him of having made his constituency into a garrison. And it is quite possible that the realities of Jamaican politics gave him no choice but to attend Haggart’s funeral. But by publicly defending Haggart and his relationship with him, Dr. Davies has at a minimum committed a great error in logic. For while Haggart and his kind may have brought “peace” to their particular communities, there can be little doubt that they have by both direct and indirect example exported havoc to the rest of the country.

Some have claimed that since there were no outstanding charges against Haggart at the time of his death the accusations made against him in the press were unfounded. But by all reports Haggart must have required a very large income to support his lavish lifestyle. Does Dr. Davies know if he gained his wealth by providing legitimate goods or services to the public? Did Dr. Davies ever ask himself how Haggart gained his position of influence? Did he use peaceful means to attain his pre-eminent status? Was he chosen lawfully by those in his community to represent them?

Some say in this regard a double standard has been applied to Willie Haggart’s wealth. And it is certainly true that many an uptown businessman has scarcely more legitimate justifications for equally extravagant spending. Which shows again that a fish always rots from the head. Who can forget the protestations of our parliamentarians a few years ago when a bill was proposed which would force public figures to account for the sources of their wealth? Certainly no progress will ever be made in tackling corruption in this country until the law requires riches to be traceable to lawful enterprises.

But two wrongs do not make a right. And Willie Haggart’s supporters in the media would do well to remember that the most famous criminal don of all, the American gangster Al Capone, was never convicted on any charges of violent crime but was eventually jailed for income tax evasion. For both were men who almost certainly amassed their wealth by illegitimate means and owed their positions of influence to a willingness and ability to violently impose their wills on those who challenged their authority.

Frankly those who argue that this type of man is necessary to keep order in Jamaica today are in effect admitting that we are slipping, or have slipped, into a state of primitive barbarianism. For how else does one describe societies where leaders are not lawfully chosen by the people but choose themselves by force, and govern not by written laws but by personal whim? changkob@hotmail.com