1

No Truth, No Trust:

Democracy, Governance and the

Prospects for

Truth-Telling Mechanisms in

Jamaica

Written by Jermaine O. McCalpin

for the Truth and Justice Action Group

April 2011

2

Table of Contents

Pages

Acknowledgements 2

Introduction 3

Background and Context 4

1. Truth Commissions and Transitional Justice 6 2. When are Truth Commission used? 6 3. How Truth Commission comes into existence 7 4. Where Truth Commissions have been Established 8 5. Why a Truth Commission? 10 6. Prospects for a Jamaican Truth Commission 10

Findings

1. Methodology and Approach 12 2. Expert Interviews Data and Analysis 13 3. Focus Group Data and Analysis 29 4. Trends and Projections 50

Prospects and Feasibility of Truth Telling Mechanisms

Options for moving forward 52

A Jamaican Truth and Reconciliation Commission: The Miller Proposal 52

Prospects for a Jamaican Truth Commission from Above – By Legislation 54

1. Key Considerations in Establishing a Truth Commission a. Motivation 57

b. Content 57

c. Establishment 58

d. Mandate/ Term of Reference 58

e. How will it be funded/How much will it cost? 59

f. Who will be commissioners? 60

g. Who will be responsible/ liable for its findings? 61

3

h. What will be its relationship to criminal prosecution? 62

i. What violations will be examined? 62

j. What will it aim to achieve? 63

k. What are the consequences if it fails? 64

2. Truth Commission from Below – Initiation 65 3. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) On Truth Commission 67

4. Thematic or Socio-historical Commission of Enquiry 68

5. Lustration and Vetting 69

6. Use and strengthen existing Public Accountability Mechanisms 70

Recommendations

1. The Funding and Administration of a National Study 73

2. Public and community consultation/ sensitization 73

3. Strengthening of civil society 74

4. Strengthen existing Public Accountability Mechanisms 75

5. Greater level of publicity and accessibility of the Report 75

Conclusion 77

Appendices 78

Bibliography 96

4

Acknowledgements

This study has been the product of collaboration between the UNDP in Jamaica and the Jamaica Council of

Churches (JCC) under the aegis of the Truth and Justice Action Group (TJAG). It is the result of a need by

both organizations to explore the prospects for truth telling mechanisms as a means to strengthen national

healing, democracy and governance especially precipitated by the events of May 2010 in Tivoli Gardens.

The document that follows was produced through the tireless efforts of the TJAG members and the

research team of Jermaine McCalpin as lead researcher, Janel McGhie and Sarah Ann Dunn as assistant

researchers. Jeriece Edwards provided transcription for the hours of interviews and focus groups

conducted.

Sincere appreciation is extended to all the persons who were interviewed for the project or who participated

in a focus group. To the communities who passionately welcomed us to conduct the focus groups and to

the organizers we owe a debt of gratitude. Rev. Harriott is especially thanked for initiating and bringing the

TJAG into existence. The duress of long hours of note taking and travel to conduct interviews and focus

groups was alleviated by the prayers of Rev. Dr Len Anglin and by the strength of God.

To Ms. Sonia Gill, Assistant Resident Representative of the UNDP in Jamaica, thank you for your constant

feedback and meticulous comments from the commencement to the benediction of this project

This study was possible through the financial and logistic supports of the UNDP in Jamaica and the Truth

and Justice Action Group.

5

Introduction

This report is an investigation into the prospects, likelihood and feasibility of truth telling mechanisms in

Jamaica. It centres on placing the need for truth-telling mechanisms within the larger framework of

democracy and governance. Its writing is monumental and momentous. This study is the first of its kind. An

examination of Jamaicans’ views on truth-telling mechanisms and the likelihood for a truth commission has

never been conducted. However the expectations of it being a blueprint for the way forward must be

tempered with the confession that it is an initial and therefore exploratory study. The Truth and Justice

Action Group (hereafter TJAG) in partnership with the United Nations Development Programme in Jamaica

(UNDP) felt that it was an opportune time to mount such a project given the crisis of accountability and

transparency within our society and especially that it had come to characterize our political discourse. While

the events of May 2010 had prompted new calls for a Jamaican truth commission, the establishment of the

Manatt- Dudus Commission of Inquiry has not decreased the tenor of the need for truth and

acknowledgement. The Report that follows is an attempt to explore the prospects for truth-telling

mechanisms in Jamaica. The approach is to provide the context for truth-telling mechanisms globally by

analyzing them within the context of transitional justice and democratization. The study also seeks to

assess how these would apply to Jamaica. Second, through a series of expert interviews and cross-

sectional focus groups the report assesses what the research indicates about truth-telling mechanisms in

Jamaica. Third, the report examines the options for Jamaica in its quest for understanding truth telling

mechanisms and which ones could be suited to our Jamaican reality. Finally the Report outlines some

recommendations given the observations made throughout our study and presents them as a means of

strengthening our system of democracy and governance.

6

Background and Context

Truth Commissions and Transitional Justice

Transitional societies are countries that are moving from a period of conflict to one of peace. Societies that

are moving from an autocratic system of government to one of democracy are also referred to as

transitional societies. These societies can therefore be described as jurisdictions that endured systematic

gross human rights violation during an authoritarian regime. During this transition period, countries

experience great difficulties in moving into a more peaceful and inclusive society. According to Monica

Nalepa, “A central question that confronts societies undergoing a transition from authoritarianism to

democratic rule is how to deal with perpetrators and collaborators of the former repressive regime.

International lawyers and policy makers have argued that societies cannot reconcile with their authoritarian

past unless they properly reckon with perpetrators of human rights violations and unless they uncover the

truth about atrocities committed by former autocrats and their allies”(Nalepa 2008).

In such contexts, mechanisms therefore, need to be put in place to address issues such as truth and

justice. These mechanisms are referred to as transitional justice mechanisms; “transitional justice denotes

an interdisciplinary field concerned with how new democracies deal with officials and collaborators of the

past authoritarian regime.” (Kritz 1995). Sanam Naraghi Anderlin et al highlighted some goals of

transitional justice these are:

• Addressing, and attempting to heal, divisions in society that arise as a result of human rights violations

• Bringing closure and healing the wounds of individuals and society, particularly through “truth telling;”

• Providing justice to victims and accountability for perpetrators;

• Creating an accurate historical record for society;

7

• Restoring the rule of law;

• Reforming institutions to promote democratization and human rights;

• Ensuring that human rights violations are not repeated; and

• Promoting co-existence and sustainable peace. (Transitional Justice and Reconciliation 2005)

In delaing with the past variety of judicial and, or non-judicial institutions can be used, these include truth

commissions, the courts, lustration/vetting laws. However, many transitional societies have adopted a non-

judicial approach and in some cases a mixture of both in order to get the truth. The most well-known

version of a non-judicial transitional justice mechanism is a truth commission.

Priscilla B. Hayner in Unspeakable Truths ( second edition), defines a truth commission as an institution

that (1) is focused on past, rather than ongoing, events; (2) investigates a pattern of events that took place

over a period of time; (3) engages directly and broadly with the affected population, gathering information

on their experiences; (4) is a temporary body, with the aim of concluding with a final report; and (5) is

officially authorized or empowered by the state under review. (Hayner 2001) A truth commission according

to Wiebelhaus- Brahm is “an ad hoc, autonomous, and victim – centered commission of inquiry set up in

and authorized by a state for the primary purpose of (1) investigating and reporting on the principal causes

and consequences of broad and relatively recent patterns of severe violence or repression that occurred in

the state during determinate periods of abusive rule or conflict, and (2) making recommendations for their

redress and future prevention.”. (E. W. Brahm 2001), 3-4. Truth commissions normally comprises of certain

elements which encompasses their goals, Eric Wiebelhaus- Brahm in the book Truth commission and

Transitional Societies: The Impact on human rights and democracy highlights four such elements:

1. They focus on past events, though often the recent past; a truth commission does not examine

contemporary abuses.

8

2. Truth commissions investigate a pattern of abuses that often span an entire political era, which may be a

period of civil conflict or a government’s tenure in office. In its mandate, the truth commission is given the

parameters of its investigation both in terms of the time period to be covered as well as the types of human

rights violations to be explored.

3. Truth commissions are temporary. Typically, they have operated over a period of six months to two years

before completing their work by submitting a report.

4. Although they are independent, truth commissions are officially sanctioned, authorized, or empowered by

the state. (Ibid), 4.

When are Truth Commission used?

“Most truth commissions are created at a point of political transition within a country, used either to

demonstrate or underscore a break with a past record of human rights abuses, to promote national

reconciliation, and/or to obtain or sustain political legitimacy.” (Amnesty International 2007) They are used

to establish:

- Truth: establishing the facts about violations of human rights that occurred in the past;

- Justice: investigating past violations and, if enough admissible evidence is gathered, prosecute the

suspected perpetrators;

- Reparation: providing full and effective reparation to the victims and their families, in its five forms;

restitution, compensation, rehabilitation, satisfaction and guarantees of non-repetition. (Ibid) In

addition, they can be used along with “national (and international) courts.”(Ibid)

How Truth Commission comes into existence

Truth Commissions are used based on their mandate and the political environment in which they are

established. “The modalities for its approval vary according to the constitutional system of the country

where the commission will operate and its legislation. In the past, truth commissions have been

9

established either by the executive (for example, by presidential decree) or by the legislature (by a

legislative act). In some cases, truth commissions have been established by executive decree under

existing legislation regulating the establishment of commissions of inquiry. (Ibid) There are a number of

guidelines in regards to how Truth Commissions are used, these are:

“The mandate of a truth commission must be broad, beyond human rights violations that might constitute

crimes under either national or international law……..The investigations should concern all cases of past

human rights violations and abuses, whether committed by government forces or by non-state actors, as

well as violations of both civil and political and economic, social and cultural rights.” (Ibid) For example, “the

Human Rights Committee expressed concern that the three Presidential Commissions of Inquiry into

involuntary Removals and Disappearances, established in Sri Lanka in 1994, were not mandated to inquire

into summary executions. The experience of other truth commissions shows that a mandate limited to

certain human rights violations can hamper a commission’s effectiveness.” (Ibid)

Where Truth Commissions have been Established

The following is a list of countries in which truth commissions have taken place up to 2010. Because the

definition of a truth commission remains contested the universe of cases is equally contested. This list

serves as a sample however of the range of countries, contexts and types of commissions that have taken

place over the past 40 years. In some instances Commissions of Inquiries are to be found on the list.

1. Uganda (1) Established 1974- Commission of Inquiry into the Disappearance of People in Uganda

since the 25th January 1971

2. Bolivia- Established 1982-1984- National Commission of Inquiry into Disappearance

3. Argentina- Established 1983-1984- National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons

4. Uruguay (1) Established 1985- Investigative Commission on the Situation of Disappeared People

and its Causes

5. Zimbabwe- Established 1985- Commission of Inquiry

10

6. Uganda(2) Established 1986-1995- Commission of Inquiry into Violations of Human Rights

7. Philippines- Established 1986-1987- Presidential Committee on Human Rights

8. Chile – (1) Established 1990- National Commission on Truth and Reconciliation (Rettig

Commission)

9. Nepal- Established 1990-1991- Commission of Inquiry to Find the Disappeared Persons during the

Panchayat Period

10. Chad- Established 1991-1992- Commission of Inquiry into the Crimes and Misappropriations

Committed by the Ex- President Habre, His Accomplices and/ or Accessories

11. Germany- (1) Established 1992-1994- Commission of Inquiry for the Assessment of History and

Consequences of the SED Dictatorship in Germany

12. El Salvador- Established 1992-1993- Commission on the Truth for El Salvador

13. Rwanda- Established 1993- Truth and Reconciliation Commission

14. Ethiopia- Established 1993-2007- Truth, Equity and Reconciliation Commission

15. Sri Lanka- Established 1994-1997- Commission of Inquiry into the Involuntary Involvement or

Disappearance of Persons

16. Haiti- Established 1995-1996- National Commission for Truth and Justice

17. South Africa- Established 1995-2002- Truth and Reconciliation Commission

18. Germany (2) Established 1995-1998- Commission of Inquiry on Overcoming the Consequences of

the SED Dictatorship in the Process of German Unity

19. Ecuador – (1) Established in 1996-1997- Truth and Justice Commission

20. Guatemala- Established 1997-1999- Commission to Clarify Past Human Rights Violence That

Have Caused the Guatemalan People to Suffer (Historical Clarification Commission)

21. Nigeria- Established 1999-2002- Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission (Oputa Panel)

22. Uruguay (2) Established 2000-2003- Peace Commission

11

23. South Korea- (1) Established 2000-2004- Presidential Truth Commission on Suspicious Deaths of

the Republic of Korea

24. Grenada- Established 2000-2002- The Grenada Truth and Reconciliation Commission

25. Panama- Established 2001-2002- Panama Truth Commission

26. Peru- Established 2001-2003- Truth and Reconciliation Commission

27. Serbia and Montenegro (formerly Federal Republic of Yugoslavia) - Established 2001-2003-

Commission for Truth and Reconciliation

28. Ghana- Established 2002- 2004- National Reconciliation Commission

29. East Timor- Established 2002-2005- Commission for Reception, Truth and Reconciliation

30. Sierra Leone- Established 2002-2004- Truth and Reconciliation Commission

31. Chile (2) Established 2003-2005- National Commission on Political Imprisonment and Torture

32. Paraguay- Established in 2004-2008- Truth and Justice Commission

33. Morocco- Established 2004-2006- Equity and Reconciliation Commission

34. Democratic Republic of Congo- Established 2004-2006- Truth and Reconciliation Commission

35. South Korea (2) Established 2005- Present- Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Republic of

Korea

36. Liberia- Established 2006- 2009- Truth and Reconciliation Commission

37. Ecuador (2) Established in 2008-2010- Truth Commission

38. Bangladesh- Established 2008- Truth and Accountability Commission

39. Mauritius-Established 2009-Present- Truth and Justice Commission

40. Solomon Islands- Established 2009- Present- Truth and Reconciliation Commission

41. Togo- Established May 2009- Present- Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission

42. Canada – Established 2009-Present- Truth and Reconciliation Commission Canada

12

43. Kenya- Established 2009-Present- Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission1

Why A Truth Commission

Priscilla Hayner, the world’s foremost authority on truth commissions argues that the most straightforward

reason to set up a truth commission is that of sanctioned fact finding: to establish an accurate record of a

country's past and thus help to provide a fair record of a country's history and its government's much-

disputed acts. But "fact finding" is perhaps an inaccurate description of investigations which often end many

situations that warrant a post-mortem truth commission. (P. B. Hayner, Truth Commissions: An Overview –

(Fifteen Truth Commissions – 1974 – 1994: A Comparative Study 1994), 607.

Prospects for a Jamaican Truth Commission

Truth commissions are usually set up during or immediately after a political transition in a country - which

may be in the form of a gradual democratization, as in Chile and South Africa, a negotiated settlement of

civil war, as in El Salvador, a military victory by rebels, as in Uganda and Chad, or a rapid democratic

opening after repressive military rule, as in Argentina and Uruguay. A truth commission can play an

important role in a transition, either by affirming a real change in the human rights practices of the

government and a respect for the rule of law in the country, or by helping to legitimize or strengthen the

authority and popularity of a new head of state, or both. (P. B. Hayner, Truth Commissions: An Overview –

(Fifteen Truth Commissions – 1974 – 1994: A Comparative Study 1994), 608. It is hoped that truth

commissions will lead to non-repetition of abuse but this is not inevitable.

It is easy for a new government to justify not being subject to the investigations of the commission, while

professing improved human rights policies. Any current abuses are therefore conveniently overlooked by

the commission. (P. B. Hayner, Truth Commissions: An Overview – (Fifteen Truth Commissions – 1974 –

1Adapted from (P. B. Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and The Challege of Truth Commissions (

second Edition) 2011)

And (P. Hayner n.d.)

13

1994: A Comparative Study 1994), 608. In Uganda in 1974, Idi Amin set up a commission partly in

response to pressure from international human rights organizations. But Amin disregarded the

commission’s report, and continued his brutal rule. In Chad, even as the Commission of Inquiry was

finishing its report on the past, the government was accused of trying to whitewash its own abuses.

It certainly is not assured that the existence of a truth commission will make the repetition of similar human

rights abuses less likely in the future. It is not claimed that acknowledging and disclosing the truth about

past abuses, or punishing those responsible for abuses, will necessarily deter future abuses. It is

extremely difficult to find any decisive evidence for this proposition. The same can be said of the contrary

view, sometimes argued by proponents of amnesties, that an amnesty promotes reconciliation, while if a

government making a transition to democracy attempts to punish those guilty of past abuses, it risks

allowing those people to seize power again. Either outcome is possible.

Ever since the South African TRC was established in 1995, Jamaicans have looked on in admiration and

have often applauded the efforts to move on from Apartheid. Some have gone further to strongly suggest

that a truth commission is what Jamaica needs in order to achieve the transition from its deeply divisive

politics and tribalized political violence into a cohesive and well-ordered society. The clarion call for a truth

commission has been resoundingly echoed, however rather than assume that a truth commission is

appropriate for Jamaica, this report and study will now turn its attention to assessing that claim.

14

Research Findings

Methodology and Approach

Twenty expert interviews and eight focus groups (with a total of 56 participants) were conducted over a

three month period between January and April 2011. The expert interviews were conducted with a wide

cross-section of the society: faith-based organizations, human rights organizations, community based

organizations, academia, the private sector, youths, children advocacy and governmental organizations.

The focus groups drew from a wide cross section of Jamaicans and while over sixty percent of participants

were from Kingston and St. Andrew we had representation from five other parishes. Fifty percent of

participants were between the ages of 19-49, fifty two percent of participants are female, forty four percent

are single, and thirty two percent married, six percent are in common law unions, two percent are widowed

and sixty percent of participants did not reply. Over sixty two percent indicated that they had some post-

secondary or tertiary level education, with twenty eight percent indicating secondary education as their

highest level; two percent indicated vocational training and eight percent did not respond. In terms of

socioeconomic status thirty percent identified themselves and lower/working class, forty six percent as

middle class (thirty two percent indicated middle/lower middle while fourteen percent said they were upper

middle class). Only six percent indicated they were upper class (four percent as lower upper class and two

percent as upper class). In terms of religious affiliation, seventy four percent identified Christianity as their

religion with two percent indicating Hinduism, Baha-I and Rastafarianism respectively. Twenty percent of

participants did not reply. Of Christian denominations the Church of God had twenty four percent, non-

demoninational at ten percent and the Seventh-Day Adventists and Baptists as eight percent each while

Methodist stood at six percent with the Anglican, Pentecostal and Roman Catholic at four percent each and

Moravians at two percent.

15

This cross sectional reach of the focus groups certainly provides a convincing representation of Jamaica’s

demographics and while this was a small n study, there is strong justification to generalize the conclusions

arrived at.

While the report speaks of truth telling mechanisms in general most of the attention was devoted to

assessing what respondents’ thoughts of a truth commission for Jamaica. Given that this was a small

study, focus group analysis was used primarily to capture the depth of discussion and interpretation that is

inevitably missing from survey and questionnaire analysis. It was felt that because of the critical need for a

study into truth telling mechanisms the report needed to capture the quality of responses and not just their

volume or quantity. The discussion of research findings that follows will focus on assessing the trends and

implications that emerge from both the focus groups as well as the expert interviews. While there are

questions that are common to both sets of analysis there are questions that were specifically asked of

focus groups that were not asked in expert interviews and vice versa. Nonetheless, the questions and the

responses collectively represent a careful observation of the views of a wide cross section of the Jamaican

population. Following chapters examine the expert interviews and then the focus groups after which the

findings will be collectively assessed.

16

Expert Interviews Data and Analysis

According to the data provided, the most serious problem facing Jamaica today is crime and violence which

accounted for twenty (20) percent of responses, while lack of trust and corruption ranked next with fifteen

(15) and ten (10) percent respectively. Crime and violence as Jamaica’s major problem has been

constantly and consistently confirmed by social research.2 One interviewee asserted “the formation of

garrison communities which led to the politicization of the inner cities and young men is critical in

accounting for high levels of crime and violence."3

What the series of interviews indicates is that crime and violence is a manifestation of a corrupt practice of

politics and economic injustice. The lack of trust that is rampant within our democracy means that people

2 Most recently, the April 26, 2011 Television Jamaica’s Prime Time News discussed a RJR/Boxill poll that indicates that forty four percent of Jamaicans felt that crime and violence was Jamaica’s major problem. 3 Dr. Clinton Hutton, lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI Mona, April 18, 2011.

17

do not trust each other and certainly do not trust our leadership at all levels. 4 When democracies are weak

on interpersonal and institutional trust and they are characterized by political apathy and cynicism which

together “empties” democracy of its substance.5 One interviewee tersely remarked that “we cannot trust

anyone who is not willing to admit what they did or did not do”. When I probed her some more she

continued “trust has no other basis on which to be built except on truth”.6

Lack of proper opportunities, discipline and accountability are next highest on the list of problems facing

Jamaica, accounting for ten percent each. While lack of justice and unity and partisanship are each five

percent, what is important to note is that most respondents correlated many of these problems almost in a

corollary; suggesting that the political is linked to the economic and to the social and they are all

interrelated. Noteworthy is the reality that this study confirms that trust; accountability, justice and low levels

of corruption are indispensable to the substance of democracy. According to some respondents it is the

lack of accountability, partisanship and corruption which facilitates crime thus causing it to be the most

serious problem.

4 Lawrence Powell, in collaboration with Paul Bourne and Lloyd Waller, “Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture”, Volume1, Main Trends in the July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey, Centre for Leadership and Governance, 2007, pp.19-24. 5 The above study found that eighty three percent of Jamaicans felt that you can never be too careful when dealing with other people and eighty five percent do not trust government. 6 Carole Narcisse, Convenor, Jamaica Civil Society Coalition, interview February 7, 2011

18

Most interviewees argued that visionary leadership, individual responsibility, education and the re-teaching

of values were the most convincing ways to solve the problems that are rife within Jamaica. Twenty (20)

percent felt that visionary leadership was critical; one respondent declared that “the first thing you have to

have is visionary leadership that is less concerned with staying in power and more with the issues that

confront the people”.7

7 Mr. Robert Stephens, former Director of Tourism, member of the Jamaica Civil Society Coalition and founding member of Jamaicans United for Sustainable Development, interview April 8th, 2011.

19

The need for education as the vehicle for social change and transformation was constantly emphasized

and the need to go back to fundamental values of respect for others, human dignity, restorative and

community consciousness were also articulated. The need for politicians to be held accountable for their

stewardship of Jamaica was another highly touted solution.

Many respondents suggested that the problem lies not in the absence of accountability mechanisms but in

the political will to enforce accountability with commensurate sanctions. Although only five (5) percent of

interviewees argued for a focus on the nexus between crime and politics as a solution, many more felt that

it was politics that had plummeted Jamaica into crime’s abyss. One interviewee indicated that “it was the

political hold on communities that hinder them (communities) from pursuing any type of development”. 8

Constitutional reform was also identified (by five (5) percent of respondents) as a solution to some of

Jamaica’s problems. It was felt that more power should be granted to the people in exercising their

democratic right. What is however missing from some of the comments is evidence of whether it is

Jamaicans’ ignorance of their constitutional rights and obligations rather than the absence of these rights

that is problematic.

Holding politicians accountable was also expressed as a solution. It is clear that much of the focus

continues to be on elected leadership primarily because most respondents in both the interviews and focus

groups felt that it was the political that is the primary context of Jamaica’s problems as a democracy. Crime

and violence is often linked to lack of legal economic opportunities, and while they relationship may not be

causal respondents felt that if many of the economically deprived had more economic

opportunities/alternatives it would cause a reduction in crime.

8 Angela Stultz, community activist/advocate and administrator for the Rose Town Library and S-Corner clinic, April 14, 2011.

20

Forty (40) percent of interviewees believe that the Manatt Commission of Enquiry was an appropriate

mechanism to handle the dealings of the US based law firm Manatt, Phelps and Phillips and the

JLP/Government’s role in the extradition affair. The need for a commission of Enquiry was strongly

expressed. In expressing strong support, an interviewee asserted “yes I support it. I think it’s an

appropriate mechanism. I cannot think of any other system where you have your political leaders publicly

accounting.”9 One respondent argued that “a lot of issued surfaced and to a large extent there was truth but

because of the political colouring of this we may be missing a lot of information…but the commission was

9 Rev. Dr Paul Gardner, President of the Jamaica Council of Churches, interview March 24, 2011.

21

necessary and it is showing the flaws in governance and accountability”.10 Ten (10) percent of all

interviewees felt it was not appropriate.

However most persons who felt it was an appropriate mechanism were still not satisfied with several

aspects of the Commission. They expressed concerns about the manner in which commissioners were

selected and appointed, the manner in which it was publicized, as one respondent noted it was more about

“making the headlines than dealing with issues”11, and how it became a politicizing instrument rather than

getting to the truth. In addition, others expressed hope that the mechanism is useful but it just needs to be

transparent and unbiased and to demonstrate that commissions of Enquiry can conduct meaningful

investigations. Other interviewees felt that the Commission of Enquiry not in its design but in its conduct

meant that “partisanship had re-imposed itself…. the partisanship was so high that truth telling was a

casualty of it”.12 One interviewee said that there is some ground to initially project that the Commission “will

have a ‘re-tribalizing effect’ on our politics”.13Several were more critical of the motivations for the

Commission, “the people that established the Commission already knew what the truth was… I am not

convinced that even after going through the Commission that the truth has been told”.14 In essence, the

Manatt Commission of Enquiry was deemed to be a necessary mechanism to address the issues related to

the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus” Coke. However it was still incomplete in that some argued that one

Commission should have been convened to address the issues identified above as well as the significant

loss of lives in West Kingston.

10 Mary Clarke, Children’s Advocate, March 18, 2011. 11 Donna Parchment Brown, CEO Dispute Resolution Foundation, interview, March 29, 2011. 12 Clinton Hutton interview, April 8, 2011. 13 Prof. Anthony Harriott, criminologist and Director of the Institute for Criminal Justice and Security, UWI Mona, April 7th, 2011. 14 Jennifer Campbell, president of the Press Association of Jamaica, April 2011.

22

In the early sections of this study the fundamental importance of accountability, transparency and

responsibility are posited as necessary and sufficient requirements for substantive democracy, in a word;

governance. When a democracy lacks accountability it means that there are weak or insufficient

mechanisms to check the power of those elected to lead. The views expressed here suggests that in

Jamaica we have a democracy that while nearly fifty years old has still not explicitly worked out a system of

accountability of the elected to the electorate, of the governors to the governed.

Thirty (30) percent of those interviewed said the thing most lacking would be freedom from political

victimization. The fear of victimization, that if I speak out I will be singled out for systemic or non-systemic

acts of recrimination was strongly expressed. It is this fear that prevents people from speaking out against

inept leadership for fear that they will be ostracized and worse killed.

Twenty five (25) percent argued that the lack of accountability is the most lacking in our democracy. This is

often fueled by the fear of victimization. It is this fear that prevents people from speaking out against inept

leadership for fear that they will be ostracized and worse killed. As one interviewee said “political leadership

23

is stuck in the plantation mode …accountability was never a part of the system of and our leaders have

stepped into that model… they feel they can do what they want, whenever they want…”15 When a

democracy lacks accountability it means that there are weak or insufficient mechanisms to check the power

of those we elect to lead us. The data strongly suggests however that unless there is a preparatory change

in our political culture, accountability mechanisms to reinforce good governance will be sterile.

Lack of justice and education are the next two weak parts of Jamaican democracy. The lack of justice that

is felt by many Jamaicans is confirmed by the fact that many persons feel that justice is swift only if one has

the requisite accouterments of status, education, and colour. In effect, it is felt that justice favours the

“propertied, titled and the positioned”16.

Formal education was identified as lacking in that it has failed to provide the “under and unprivileged with

avenues out of poverty and hopelessness. Education is lacking and not just formal education but also

educating citizens on their indispensable role of strengthening democracy and justice by holding leadership

at all levels accountable to the governed. If more persons feel that it is not just an optional requirement but

a necessary part of their civic duty, democracy and governance will mutually reinforce each other.

15

Yvonne Sobers, convener of Families against State Terrorism, interview April 11, 2011. 16 Carole Narcisse, Convenor of Jamaica Civil Society Coalition, February 7, 2011

24

This question represents one of the most crucial asked within the study. Ever since South Africa brought

into public view the mechanism of a truth commission as an investigative body designed for truth telling and

seeking, many countries have besought one. In the series of interviews the idea of a truth commission

enjoyed strong support with sixty-five percent of the respondents replying yes when asked if they supported

such a body. One interviewee said “it’s a noble call because of what we have been through since 1962…

postcolonial politics has led to some of the worst things… I support a truth commission however

recognizing that there will never be one unless there is a crisis in which the viability of the two political

parties is in doubt”.17 Another responded, “I support any efforts that will resolve where we are now… we

will have to decide what the outcome will be, who will be forgiven removed from office etc… the Church is a

good place to lead something like this”.18 “I think a truth commission is a wonderful thing for Jamaica… it

17 Clinton Hutton, April 8, 2011. 18 Jennifer Campbell, April 2011.

25

would bring a lot of healing”.19It is clear that many support the idea of a truth commission not just because

of not its name but its intended effects; to remove the veil of secrecy around politics and society, to render

justice, healing and reconciliation and to signal a break from a particular kind of “dead-end” political

trajectory. The Public Defender, Mr. Earl Witter argued that a truth commission “could be a catalyst. We

have the opportunity to confront our demons, which so many countries have not done”.20 Others felt that a

truth commission would “break the pact between politicians that prompt them to shield each other when

accountability is demanded”.21

Long time advocate of a truth commission for Jamaica, Rev. Al Miller argued that the founding of a truth

commission “cannot be left simply to the political machinery, we (the people) have to demand it”.22 One

respondent was sober in her analysis “as a country we like to do what other countries do whether it suits us

or not, whether our culture can accommodate it or not… it’s a good concept but how will you guarantee that

this will get to the truth”.23 Some felt that it was a morally good ideal but did not appear to be practical or

powerful. Chair of the Independent Jamaica Council on Human Rights, Mrs. Arlene Harrison –Henry

argued that while “I am supportive of all such initiatives and I would not throw cold water on it, I can tell you

that based on the way we have so far investigated other matters makes me feel that not much will come out

of a truth commission”.24

The data indicates that many of the persons who do not support the idea of a truth commission are not

against it not because they think it is a bad mechanism but primarily because of their negative experiences

with the Manatt-Dudus Commission of Enquiry. This Commission has adversely affected their support for

public truth telling mechanisms. The additional findings based on the responses to this question points to

the fact that many persons have conflated a truth commission and a Commission of Enquiry. They are

indeed separate if even related mechanisms.

19 Rev. Dr Paul Gardner, March 24, 2011. 20 Mr. Earl Witter, February 28, 2011. 21 Carole Narcisse, February 7, 2011. 22 Rev. Al Miller, head of the National Transformation Programme, interview April 8, 2011. 23 Mary Clarke, March 18, 2011. 24 Arlene Harrison-Henry, March 21, 2011.

26

Of those who explicitly are against the idea of a truth commission in Jamaica, the Commissioner of Police

Owen Ellington is most blatant. He believes that “the call for a truth commission in Jamaica is insincere. I

think some people just want to open up some old wounds and want some scandal, to write about and talk

about and distract the population some more”.25 While the comment is direct it requires some assessment.

It is indeed true that truth commissions by their very nature have to exhume and excavate the past, they

have to dig up the past in order to apply scrutiny not intrinsically but instrumentally to get to closure,

honesty, justice and reconciliation. So the exhumation of the past might be painful but is necessary if a

society such as Jamaica is to move on. What the comments suggests and rightly so is that while we need

the truth we must be very deliberate and contemplative in what mechanism of truth telling and revelation we

select as a society. Moreover, most societies that elect of have a truth commission do not properly assess

the consequences of truth telling exercises.

A key point raised in many of the interviews was the issue of leadership regarding a truth commission. We

return to that question in the final section of the paper on “Ways Forward”. What is critical to note is that

many believe that if a truth commission is to be successful it must have strong leadership that would steer it

away from controversy and reigniting deep divisions. Yvonne Sobers of Families Against State Terrorism

(FAST) felt that a necessary requirement for an effective truth commission for Jamaica would be leadership

that had the moral authority. She felt that in Jamaica, “there is nobody at present that has that kind of moral

authority”.

While there is no unquestionable moral figure within Jamaica according to the observation of some

respondents, the Church in Jamaica has generally supported the idea of a Jamaican truth commission and

has been that voice within civil society that has focused the call for a truth commission. A truth commission

finds much resonance with religious institutions primarily because of their mutual emphasis on truth,

healing, forgiveness, justice and reconciliation. However the challenge of translating these values into a

social structure and outside the walls of churches is critical. If a truth commission is going to be founded in

25 Owen Ellington, Commissioner of Police, Jamaica, interview April 1, 2011.

27

Jamaica it has to have the support of the Christian church and other religious organizations. There may be

cynicism about religious authority however many still respect it as one of two institutions that still

experience high levels of trust in Jamaica, the other being the family.

The larger issue that will be further explored in the following section of this study is whether Jamaica’s

problems are best addressed by a truth commission or some other mechanism.

A truth commission is a specific apparatus; it is an official, non-judicial investigative body that is established

to probe atrocities and systematic violations of human rights within a country over a specific period of time.

Truth commissions are often used in transitional contexts, when countries are moving away from

authoritarian repression and towards democratic transition. In essence one may be inclined to dismiss the

feasibility of a truth commission in Jamaica because there is no clear, unequivocal observation of a political

or post-conflict transition. Nonetheless, this report will examine and explore the merits and prospects of a

truth commission for Jamaica.

28

Fifteen percent of participants believed that a truth commission should address the acknowledgement of

past wrongs as well as forgiveness and healing presumably for these past wrongs. Ten percent of

respondents would want a truth commission to address the role of the United States and Britain in the

domestic politics of the Jamaica in the 1970’s. The data makes it clear that most Jamaicans believe the

1970’s to be the single most important and consequential decade of Jamaica’s post independent

development. Ten percent of interviewees wanted a truth commission to probe the nexus of politics and

crime observed especially in the political supply of guns by political parties in the 1970’s. What is clear is

that many of the issues to be addressed centre on the nature of Jamaica’s political development and its

linked to the development of crime and criminality. The need to acknowledge the past is not just to recount

that events occurred in the past, it is to explore how they have impacted on the present. Absent from this

list of things to address are single watershed events such as the Coral Gardens incident in 1963, the Green

29

Bay killings, the electoral violence of the October 1980 general elections or even most recently the May

2010 killing of over 70 Jamaicans in West Kingston.

The research indicates therefore that while a truth commission is strongly desired and discussed its roles

and functions are not properly understood. In effect, there is a weak understanding of the true mission of

truth commissions. The implications of this weak understanding of truth commissions must be dealt with.

Truth commissions are explicitly investigative mechanisms used to probe human rights violations and

political repression in the past to ensure that these are not repeated in the future. So truth commissions are

both backward as well as forward looking. They are essentially Janus-faced mechanisms. In the

recommendations section of this report, it will be assessed as to what truth commissions can and cannot

do.

30

While respondents did not authoritatively outline what a truth commission could address they are

significantly clearer in intended effects on democracy.

The focus is disproportionately on the truth telling and less on on the effects/consequences of this truth.

Over forty (40) percent argued that a truth commission would have a postive effect by strengthening

democracy, indicating a fresh start for Jamaica, increasing accountability in leadership and settin the record

straight about certain questionable occurrences within Jamaica’s development. Many posited it would be a

good mechanism to acknoweldge the wrongs in the past as a basis to laying a foundation to move forward.

One interviewee strongly suggested that civil society will have to lead to determine what kind of effect a

truth commission would have on our democracy. “Civil society will have to stand up for what they want, it

has to start with us”.26 However others were clear that “the only truth that Jamaicans were interested in was

26 Yvonne Sobers, interview, April 11, 2011.

31

the breaking of the relationship between criminals and politicians and how transformative that would be for

our country”.27

A greater level of assessment is required in order to examine and distinguish between the expectations

and the value of truth commissions. It can be concluded from an examination of the responses that much of

the meaningfulness of truth commissions is assumed rather than explored. In the next section the report

analyses the focus groups to determine whether the observations made there are different from those of

the expert interview. At the end of the section the report will articulate the trends that emerge from the data

in the study.

27 Anthony Harriott, interview April 7, 2011.

32

Focus Group Data and Analysis

Twenty six percent of focus group respondents believe that crime and violence was the biggest problem

facing Jamaica which is even higher than the level in the expert interviews. One participant argued that

“crime and violence was the major problem and it affects the economic and the sociopolitical dynamics of

33

the country”.28 Another respondent argued that “it is crime and violence… but I believe it is an expression

of self. Somehow we have learned to express ourselves in a way that is not healthy”.29

The standard definition used for corruption of “the appropriation of public, elected office for private gain”

helps to enliven the perception that public officials are corrupt but not private citizens. Fourteen (14)

percent felt that corruption was the biggest problem. Corruption was often viewed as something that

politicians participate in. There was little recognition in the focus group responses for the fact that it also

involved private citizens and the private sector. Corruption was felt to be engrafted in the political and

societal structure. A few of those who articulated corruption as the major problem did indicate that

corruption was a problem at all levels of the society.

Twelve percent indicated that Jamaica’s biggest problem was a lack of truth. One participant argued that

“we are not a very truthful set of people. Latest situations and circumstances such as the Manatt

Commission have proven this”.30 One participant observed that “dishonesty is our biggest problem, if you

do not tell the truth then a lot of other problems arise”.31

Injustice was identified by ten percent of the participants as the biggest problem facing Jamaica. One

respondent commented, “justice, no one crying out for justice, but like Peter Tosh said I don’t want your

peace, give me equal rights and justice, if people feel like only some people get justice, they are not going

to want peace, because peace is going to look soft”32

Eight (8) percent felt of the focus group respondents felt that it the biggest problem was economic

stagnation. One respondent said “if people have more economic opportunities that will stop the idleness,

28 Focus group held at University of the West Indies, April 7, 2011. 29 Focus group held at the Peace Centre, Kingston Jamaica March 29, 2011. 30 Focus group held in Trench Town, Kingston Jamaica March 15, 2011. 31 August Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011. 32 Participant in August Town Focus Group.

34

once they are working they don’t have time to idle.”33 “The economy is stagnant, we are not growing and

when people are unemployed, out of desperation they turn to crime”.34

What it of note is that only six (6) percent believed that lack of trust was the biggest problem. The major

problems continue to be perceived as primarily sociopolitical that then impact on socio-economic and other

aspects of the country. More persons within the focus groups felt that a lack of truth was a bigger problem

than lack of trust. In the response to a later question respondents relate truth, trust and justice to

democracy. Collectively twenty two (22) percent of respondents believe that these three key dimensions of

a strong democracy are lacking in Jamaica.

33 Ibid. 34 Participant, Santa Cruz Focus Group, April 4, 2011.

35

32%

18%12%

12%

10%

6%

6%4%

Question 2:What are some of the possible solutions to the problem?

No Response

Accountability Mechanisms

Educational Investment

Unity

Entrepreneural Activities

Speaking the Truth

Speaking the Truth

Church Involvement

It is interesting to note that all respondents articulated what they felt was Jamaica’s biggest problem yet

over a third of participants failed to offer up a solution. The focus groups differed from the expert interviews

in that they collectively concluded that strong accountability mechanisms (eighteen (18) percent of

participants asserted this) are the best solutions to the problems whereas the expert interview subjects

stated that it was strong leadership that was the best solution. Most of the focus groups responses on the

issue of stronger accountability mechanisms agreed that “accountability is important; it should start at the

top and from there when people see that they are serious about governance and leadership then it would

ripple down to the wider society”.35 Participants felt that the elected and societal leadership of our country

should lead by example, ensuring personal integrity is paramount. Additionally, the research revealed that

civil society organizations need to develop new tools in order to strengthen accountability.

The critical importance of education as a solution to Jamaica’s problems is emphasized by both sets of

data. Within the focus groups twelve (12) percent of respondents observed that investment in education

was the best solution while within the expert interviews the figure stood at fifteen (15) percent. Of note is

35 August Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011.

36

the fact that many participants felt that education up to the tertiary level needs to be more accessible and

that the standards of education within the public school system is to be equivalent to the quality of private

education. Many respondents expressed the idea that an educated population would better help to hold

leaders accountable. “Compulsory universal education is important. I think that would lay the foundation for

addressing most of the ills within our society. If people have choices and opportunities and are taught

proper values it will lead to a turnaround in our society”.36

A significant twelve percent of respondents believe that Jamaicans lack a sense of unity and communalism.

One respondent suggested that “I think we all have come to a point where we think that I exist only for me,

myself and I. Once we step away from that approach as Jamaicans, how we treat each other, then and only

then can we see change in our government and society. We are too divided and selfish”.37

Ten (10) percent of participants stated that better entrepreneurial activities would also solve some of

Jamaica’s problems. It was felt that more people need to have economic opportunities that will help to

create less dependence on the state and its institutions for hand-outs. This in turn would cause citizens to

feel less beholden to elected representatives and would be more critical of their stewardship of the country.

The challenge as expressed by the respondents was not just to be more critical however; it was also to

help build the country.

Institutional reform and change was articulated by six percent of respondents as the primary solution to

Jamaica’s problems. Participants who declared this asserted that specialized agencies need to be

established which would look after the welfare of the vulnerable in society. Others talked more of

constitutional reform that would re-balance the power of the executive and legislature and ensure an

independent judiciary. They did not discount the need for strong executive leadership but felt that Jamaica

did not have strong leadership and what was needed was transformational leadership. “We need a coalition

approach to governance and nation-building. We need a leadership that has a new approach to

36 Participant in the Peace Centre Focus Group, March 29, 2011. 37 Participant in the Women’s Resource and Outreach Centre Focus Group, April 8, 2011.

37

governance. We also need more women in key decision making. Women would bring something new to the

national decision making process”.38

While only six (6) percent outlined that speaking the truth was a solution, it was reflected in most

responses. The respondents suggest that truth speaking was necessary for our democracy to grow. One

participant observed “when you speak the truth people will become forgiving but when you keep lying,

people will not trust you”.39 It is clear that participants across the focus groups especially but also from the

expert interviews have related truth-telling to trust and have argued ,as we will see in a later section, that

both are critically important to the content of democracy and governance.

The role of the Church was also strongly expressed as a solution. Several respondents stated that the

Church was an institution that while imperfect, offered the best hope for transforming our country. It was felt

that the Church had been “sleeping” and been less than actively seeking after justice and truth in

leadership. Others observed that recent developments such as the formation of the Churches Umbrella

Group indicate that the Church is now ready to take up its rightful place as moral leader to transform

Jamaica. Additionally, some participants felt that Jamaica needed Godly leaders and leadership. They

argued that leaders who fear God will learn to serve His people rather than abuse their power over them.

“We ought to have Godly leaders; we can’t have persons who do not fear God governing us. This

contributes to the problems we are having in our country.”40

38 Ibid. 39 Participant in Trench Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011. 40 Participant, Women’s Focus Group, April 8, 2011.

38

A high percentage (42) of respondents offered no indication of the relationship of these three concepts to

democracy. An encouraging twenty six percent of those who participated indicated that truth, trust and

justice are critical tenets of democracy. One participant observed, “I don’t think true democracy can exist

without these. Most Jamaicans do not even know their rights, they think that the government is a king who

rules the people but does not have any strong obligations to them”.41 What is interesting to note is that this

respondent went on to state that if people do not demand the truth from government about certain things

they are not going to volunteer it, a king doesn’t just tell his subjects information they have to demand it.

41 Participant, August Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011.

39

Another participant declared ‘that if we understood the relationship between truth, trust and justice we

would realize that we (Jamaicans) do not live in a true democracy. If democracy is government of the

people for the people and by the people then it cannot exist without those three concepts as a key part of

it.” “Truth, trust and justice should form the foundation on which democracy is practiced in our country, if

you are not truthful you should not be trusted and you will never be able to govern justly because you would

do so not on the basis of truth but on deceit”.42 For many respondents to this question, the point of saying

Jamaicans live in a democracy is so that people are able to achieve what they can under fair and just

circumstances. In other words democracy using truth, trust and justice is to enable everyone to “live the life

they have reason to value”.43 Another participant argued that “when you speak of democracy legitimacy

comes to mind. Truth, trust and justice are part of legitimacy. A government cannot be truly democratic if its

regime is not characterized by transparency and openness, the trust of its citizens and fair administration of

justice for all”.44 The responses here have indicated that a significant number of persons believe that true

democracy, which can be inferred to mean democracy that goes beyond the holding of elections and

certain basic rights, is only possible when it rests on these three pillars.

Democracy guarantees the protection of human rights and the inviolability of these rights. Twelve (12)

percent of participants voiced the view that truth, trust and justice relate to democracy in that these three

underpinnings help to strengthen basic regard for people to be able to rely on the protection of the state

rather than arbitrary exercise of its power. Respondents felt that when democracy is transparent and based

on the trust of the governed, justice will be served and thus elected officials words will be trusted and

supported. In essence, these three underpinnings serve to provide democracy with strong support. Truth,

trust and justice were also stated to be what makes democracy strong on the proper respect for human

rights and the dignity of each citizen. As one participant puts it, “we have the franchise, we can vote but we

42 Participant, Women’s Focus Group. 43 Amartya Sen’s theory of development as freedom centres on this idea. Development as Freedom. New York: Anchor Press, 2000. 44 Participant, UWI Focus Group, April 7, 2011.

40

are sometimes cut off from really affecting outcomes. When truth, trust and justice coalesce in a democracy

it gives us some measure of “smaddification”.45

Eight (8) percent of participants argued that truth, trust and justice relate to democracy in that they provide

respect for the rule of law. Strong democracies respect and uphold the rule of law, that the laws of the land

that establish the interaction of citizens with the state and with each other are inviolable was strongly

expressed. When these three pillars support democracy it means that citizens can have confidence in their

democracy that their rights will be upheld and that their opinion and support of democratic institutions is

properly regarded.

It was surprising that only four percent of participants felt that these three concepts relate to democracy in

that they help to foster openness and accountability. Given that eighteen percent of persons previously

asserted strengthening accountability mechanisms would help to solve Jamaica’s problems, it was

expected that more persons would have made the connection between these three values and democracy.

What is clear is that some persons felt that if a democracy is characterized by these three values then

openness and accountability would be high. If you the truth is told, people will have more trust because

those who tell the truth are being accountable. When governments are truthful, they will also be just in their

dealings with their citizens. Only two (2) percent stated that these three values had nothing to do with

democracy.

The responses here unequivocally point to the fact that the focus group members were critical of Jamaican

democracy not because they see it as in need of strengthening and renewal. The respondents had high

expectations of their democracy even if they have not yet experienced deep satisfaction with the welfare of

its constituents. The responses also suggest that Jamaicans are reflecting on the substance of democracy

45 The idea of “smaddification” which was a term popularized by Prof. Rex Nettleford is used to mean the process by which we become someone or somebody, in Patios, “smaddy”. What it means therefore is that when people are properly regarded as persons by others they become somebody. When democracy is based on truth, trust and justice, it properly regards and values each person thus making them “smaddy” (somebody).

41

more than its form. None of the respondents made any mention of satisfaction with democracy as being as

important as what democracy guarantees.

42

37%

19%

19%

14%

9%

2%

Question 4:How do you feel about the Manatt-Dudus Commission of Inquiry?

Waste of Time and Money

No Criminal Implications for

Paticipants

Primarily of Entertainment Value

Expose Politicians as Liars

Good medium for Transparency

and Accountability

Closest thing to a Truth

Commission

Thirty seven (37) percent of respondents felt that the Commission was a waste of time and money. “It was

a grand waste of time as nobody will be charged for anything”.46 “It was a total waste of time… at the end of

the day we all knew what the truth was even before the commission”.47 Another respondent contended, “I

believe it was a partial waste of our money and I do not believe that it is effective. I don’t believe that they

feel accountable to us”. 48 One participant while concluding that it was a waste of money argued that there

was some value to it; “I believe it was a significant waste of money, however now we get to see the

inadequacies of our government.”49 “Manatt Commission is a waste of poor people money”.50 The focus on

the cost of the Commission was another reason people expressed as to why it was wasteful. “Poor people

continue to lose money from the Commission and taxpayers’ money going down the drain. What is truth

without justice?”51

46 Participant, Santa Cruz Focus Group, April 4, 2011. 47 Ibid. 48 Participant, UWI Focus Group, April 7, 2011. 49 UWI Focus Group, April 7, 2011. 50 S-Corner Focus Group, March 30, 2011. 51 Trench Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011.

43

Nineteen percent felt that the Commission was weak because there would be no criminal sanctions for

those who appeared before the Commission. And while the Commissioners’ report is due on May 16th

many respondents have already made their verdict clear irrespective of what the recommendations are. “I

don’t hear anyone talking bout who responsible for the seventy three people killed in West Kingston, no

baddy not going to pay for dat?”52 Many respondents felt a sense of lingering questions that they had

expected would have been answered through the Commission’s proceedings. One participant expressed

both hope and dismay in her comments. “It was commendable that a Commission was called for, however

out of it came no sanctions for anyone. Everyone just came and said what they had to say and went back

to their jobs.”53 “Nobody is going to be charged for anything so what is the point”. 54 Many respondents felt

that the integrity of commissions of inquiry as useful bodies to probe state problems was compromised

given that this Commission was a clear political appointment in terms of who appointed the commissioners

and established the terms of references.

Several focus group participants stated that the primary value of the Commission’s proceedings was its

entertainment. Nineteen (19) percent felt that it was primarily an entertainment or talent show and others

spoke of it as a soap opera. “I was highly entertained and the money spent was excessive.”55 “The

politicians used it as a stage to engage in theatrics that distracted from the real issues”.56

Fourteen percent (14) of participants contended that the Manatt-Dudus Commission revealed/exposed

politicians as liars. “I was able to see public officials that are put in government to look out for our interests

put their hand on the Bible and then lie. They have shown themselves to be corrupt, deceitful people who

are not looking out for the people.”57 “All were telling lies. My children will be paying for it when I die”.58

52 Ibidem note 49. 53 Women’s Focus Group, April 8, 2011. 54 Santa Cruz Focus Group, April 4, 2011. 55 Ibidem, note, 48. 56 Ibid. 57 UWI Focus Group, April 7, 2011. 58 S-Corner Focus Group, March 30, 2011.

44

Most persons who responded that it revealed politicians to be liars also felt that everything about what

transpired with the Commission was meant to hide not reveal truth.

Nonetheless, not all participants felt negatively about the Commission. Nine percent felt that it was a good

medium for transparency and accountability and was therefore very valuable. “ I believe there has already

been significant value from the Enquiry already… they did a good job in making persons who were to be

held accountable for actions feel very uncomfortable. As far as I am concerned the Commission was the

best step for me in terms of accountability in our political system I have seen in any period in Jamaica”.59

Other felt that the Commission was “a victory for the democratic forces to be able to force the hand of the

government to have this Commission. We were able to see the weakness in our leadership …”60 “We want

these politicians to know that when they do something wrong there is a higher court that they will have to

answer to, the people’s court. This is immensely important for us that we are at a point where we can call

politicians and ask questions about their actions, it means our democracy is maturing”.61 A few participants

also expressed the idea that given that Jamaicans have a democratic and civic right to know, felt that it was

good that a Commission of Inquiry was held. “While most people are of the view that it (the Commission)

was a waste of time and money, the reality is that something went terribly wrong and our responsibility is to

find out that truth. In finding out this truth what we are seeing is the manifestation of the poverty of our

leaders in terms of their morals”.62 Another participant declared that the Commission was not the politician’s

initiative; it was civil society who pressured the government to act. “Just thinking about it just now, it is an

exercise of our rights in a democracy to have something like this for the truth to come out, even if it became

a political playground we still have a right to know what happened.”63

Finally, a few respondents (two percent) argued that the Commission of Enquiry is the closest thing

Jamaica is going to get to a truth commission so it should be used well. “This is the closest thing people in

59 Private Sector Organization of Jamaica Focus Group, April 19, 2011. 60 Women’s Centre Focus Group. 61 PSOJ Focus Group, April 19, 2011 62 August Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011. 63 Ibid.

45

Jamaica will get to a truth commission. Involuntarily the truth is coming out. Participants however need to

be given immunity against prosecution for them to speak more freely”.64

64 Trench Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011.

46

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Undecided

Good for the Community Level

No Response

Good for the National Level

Prefer no Truth Commission

Community and National Level

Prefer Commission of Inquiry

22%

20%

20%

16%

12%

6%

4%

Question 5: What do you think is the possible worth of a Truth Commission at your community level or nationally?

Undecided

Good for the Community Level

No Response

Good for the National Level

Prefer no Truth Commission

Community and National Level

Prefer Commission of Inquiry

Twenty two (22) percent of participants were undecided/ unsure about the value or worth of a truth

commission primarily because there is a deficit of understanding about what such a mechanism is and

hopes to achieve.

Twenty percent (20) of participants did not respond at all to the question. Of those who responded, twenty

percent (20) felt that a truth commission would be good at the community level. Those who felt that it would

be good at the community level argued that if many of the communities that have been torn apart by

violence and political tribalism could have a truth commission- like exercise this would provide inspiration

for a national mechanism. One community advocate and activist strongly touted the idea that “when

broken communities with the work of organizations like Peace Management Initiative and Violence

Prevention Alliance and the Church come together truth and reconciliation can be possible”. 65 Another

respondent expressed that “I support the idea of a truth commission; however I think we should test the

65 Women’s Focus Group.

47

waters with smaller community ones then build up interest in a national one.” 66 Another participant argued

that “I would like to see a truth commission linked to efforts that community people in particular are making

towards justice and reconciliation. I think if it can work at the community levels in some of our troubled

spots then we can hope for it at the national level”. 67 Several persons expressed the support of a truth

commission at the community level to help inspire a national one but were cautious in being concerned that

a safe place must be created where people can disseminate whatever information they know without fear of

reprisal and victimization.

Several participants expressed the view that it is the Church that would have to be leader at both the

community and national levels in making this mechanism a success. The idea of a truth commission from

below, from the community or grassroots level will be given greater assessment in the following section.

Sixteen percent of participants stated that a truth commission would be better at the national level. “I think a

truth commission would be good nationally because it would create an atmosphere of fear among

politicians of getting involved in any actions that can be exposed”.68 Another respondent argued that a

national truth commission would foster “improved governance… it would have to however have

mechanisms in place to punish them for not telling the truth. It would create greater trust among

constituents”.69

Twelve (12) percent of respondents thought that there was no value to a truth commission at any level.

They thought it was a good idea and good academic exercise but would not have much value. One

participant felt that “while there is value I don’t see where we would start. It would need to be precipitated

by something”.70 Another respondent contended “I don’t agree with it, it is digging graves and what a

modern society needs is future looking enterprises”.71 “This is a generation of politicians which will only tell

66 Ibid. 67 UWI Focus Group. 68 UWI Focus Group. 69 Ibid. 70 PSOJ Focus Group. 71 Ibid.

48

lies, so no to truth commissions”.72 The skeptical position that many persons had of a truth commission was

explicitly informed by what they felt was the weaknesses of the Manatt Commission.

Six percent (6) of respondents felt that a truth commission is good for both the national and community

level. Four percent (4) of persons preferred a commission of Enquiry to a truth commission because they

felt a commission of Enquiry focused on specific events while truth commissions focus on systematic

patterns of abuses and are therefore potentially vague and slow.

Most respondents expressed the view that given Jamaica’s culture of retribution and violence, truth telling

involves even more risks. Nonetheless the idea of a truth commission at the national and/or community

level enjoys forty two (42) percent support. This is lower than the sixty five (65) percent support the

mechanism has among the expert interviews. However what both numbers confirm is that the idea of a

truth commission for Jamaica has to be properly engaged and explored.

The other important conclusion to be drawn from the findings is that the issue of leadership places great

value on the role of the Church as moral leader in the call for a truth commission. Moral leadership has to

be strong and decisive and while it would not be without contestation, the Church still experiences some of

the highest level of confidence/trust of all institutions.

72 S Corner Focus Group.

49

When asked the above question over half of respondents stated what they would want a truth commission

to address corruption and political tribalism within which they include political garrisons and political

violence as manifestations of political tribalism. Most of what participants would want a truth commission to

address are political issues that have resulted in other types of problems.

50

A participant glibly declared, “I would like to find out why and where it came from, the thought to create this

thing name garrison”. 73

Criminologist Anthony Harriott argues that “the rise of garrisons is intricately linked to the rise of organized

crime and its association with politics. This is what has also helped to account for such high levels of

systemic corruption in Jamaica”.74 It is clear that most of what Jamaicans want answers to regarding the

past, centres of politics and the kind of politics that divide. One participant stated that “I would want to know

about political corruption because politics is at the centre of our destruction”.75 When participants were

asked to expand on their desire to know about the politics most persons wanted to know about garrisons,

political parties and the distribution of guns/ammunitions especially in the 1970’s and 80’s and political

corruption and tribalism that has led to violent clashes between supporters of the two major political parties.

Several others would want a commission to inquire specifically about corruption in the police force.

Twenty one (21) percent did not respond to the question, which indicates that as with the previous question

(twenty percent), some participants did not know enough about what truth commissions are or what do they

do.

Extra-judicial killings have been a serious blight on our in Jamaica for the past two decades, with a record

390 persons killed by the security forces in 2010. Fourteen (14) percent of all respondents would want a

truth commission to address extra-judicial killings by the police arm of the state. Four percent of

respondents would want a truth commission to specifically address the Coral Gardens killings of members

of the Rastafarian faith by the police in 1963. Two percent of participants would want a truth commission to

re-examine the Braeton Seven killings of 2000 as well as the Kraal killings of 2003. Both these incidents

while not very recent continue to arise whenever the issue of extrajudicial killing and the abuse of state

73 Trench Town Focus Group, March 15, 2011. 74 Anthony Harriott, Interview, April 7, 2010. 75 August Town Focus Group.

51

power are mentioned. Missing from the list of issues suggested for a truth commission to address were the

Green Bay killings on which there was an Inquiry, in the 1980’s.

The most interesting finding from the focus group on this issue of what a truth commission address should

is that as recent as the May 2010 incursion of West Kingston is only four percent of respondents felt that a

truth commission should address that specific issued. This finding suggests that Jamaicans think a truth

commission should address issues much farther into the past. The conclusion is consistent with how truth

commissions operate, they are investigative bodies that examine violations of human rights and political

repression in a country’s recent past.

However, the operational challenge of using a truth commission to address extrajudicial killings is that so

many killings have taken place that a truth commission would have to be almost entirely devoted to them in

order to stand any chance of properly addressing them. A secondary issue is whether a truth commission

is best suited to deal with non-systematic abuse of state apparatuses. What is interesting based on the

responses of the participants is that too many persons have died at the hands of the police and they have

borne no accountability or responsibility.

The responses contained in this section strongly suggest that for most respondents the political has been

the source of much of Jamaica’s social and economic ills in such a way that everything is reduced to a

creature of politics. The idea of a truth commission would be critical in helping Jamaica to understand some

of the painful periods in its past.

52

This final question in the focus group analysis saw thirty six (6) percent of participants not offering a

response. Of those who replied, sixteen percent felt that Jamaica needed more accountability mechanism

53

in order to move on as a country. Fourteen (14) percent of participants said that the only way Jamaica

could move forward was for there to be justice and equality before the law. It was felt by twelve (12) percent

of respondents that truth telling would strengthen the moving forward in Jamaica and additionally ten

percent were of the view that a truth commission would be a good mechanism to move Jamaica forward

because it would help to foster accountability and transparency which are critical dimensions of substantive

democracy. Six (6) percent of respondents declared that unless political tribalism ends Jamaica cannot

move forward as a country. Four percent stated that the way forward has to be characterized by greater

involvement by the Church.

Trends and Projections

Based on examination of the data most persons that participated in focus groups and interviews identified

crime and violence as the most serious problem facing Jamaica. The majority believes that the Commission

of Inquiry was an appropriate mechanism. However, the process of selection of the commissioners and the

attitudes displayed at the commission were areas of concern for the majority of respondents. In responding

to the issue of support for a Jamaican truth commission, the majority of persons in interviews and focus

groups were in favour of a truth commission (sixty five and forty two percent respectively). Nonetheless

despite the strong level of support, there are several issues that arise from the participants concerns. After

highlighting the need for such a truth-telling mechanism they are concerned about the other elements that

come with it; who will chair it and serve as commissioners, what will be its terms of reference and mandate

period, what are the consequences of such mechanism and how will it get persons to tell the truth. One

respondent even said that it was a ‘noble call’ for persons to want a truth commission. All of these issues

will be given greater attention in the following section.

54

This study is the first exploratory study to examine the prospects for truth telling mechanisms as a means to

strengthening democratic governance. It has also provided the basis to assess the need for and feasibility

of a truth commission mechanism to help achieve good governance and democratic consolidation.

All respondents that spoke about a truth commission used the example of the South African Truth

Commission which suggests that their primary and maybe only experience with a truth commission (other

than persons advocating for one) has been the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There is clearly a

paucity of knowledge regarding truth commissions given that there have been more than thirty five (35)

across the world since 1974. What is even more alarming is that there have been two (2) truth commissions

in the Caribbean and only one respondent made any reference to one. The Haitian truth commission even

preceded the South African Truth Commission by eight months (April and December 1995 respectively),

Grenada also had a truth commission that was established in 2001.

Another crucial finding is that the early 2011 Manatt-Dudus Commission of Enquiry appeared to have

complicated the prospects for a Jamaican truth commission for two reasons. First, many have deemed the

Manatt Commission a waste of time are now more skeptical of truth-telling mechanisms and second, many

persons have confused a truth commission with a Commission on Inquiry therefore treating them as the

identical mechanism with different names.

Given that most of what citizens in Jamaica want answers to are political specifically corruption and political

tribalism, can a truth commission best provide those answers?

In the next section the report turns its attention to some of the recommendations that the research has

yielded in addition to assessing the multiple options for Jamaica in moving forward and strengthening its

democracy. The lingering question that remains is whether or not a truth commission would be best suited

to address the problems that have been articulated and if we decide it is the best mechanism to address

them what are the implications and consequences on our country and its governance.

55

Prospects and Feasibility of Truth Telling Mechanisms

Options for Moving Forward

On the basis of anecdotal support many persons have called for a truth commission for Jamaica.Our study

has clearly indicated that the mechanism of a truth commission finds strong support among respondents.

One columnist in the Daily Gleaner argued that a truth commission for Jamaica would be a like a “national

wash- out”. It is hoped that a truth commission would be cathartic that it would “purge the body politic of the

infirmities of crime, violence, injustice, political tribalism and corruption”.76 The findings are clear evidence

that a truth commission finds strong support among respondents. However a truth commission is not the

only truth-telling mechanism and what is more important is that societies who appropriate such

mechanisms are clear on the “goodness of fit” of each approach to the specific conditions of that country.

The study now turns its attention to examining each truth telling mechanism individually in order to assess

the feasibility of each for Jamaica and then to conclude with the recommendations that proceed from this

examination.

A Jamaican Truth and Reconciliation Commission: The Miller Proposal

The first formal proposal on record advocating for a truth commission in Jamaica was produced by a group

of clergy led by Rev. Al Miller. The group produced a document entitled “Conceptual Technical Document

for the Establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in Jamaica 2006”.77 The document

explicitly justified the need and advocated for a Jamaican truth commission as a solution to the increase in

76 Peter Espeut, Blood on their Hands Daily Gleaner, October 3, 2001. 77 I received a personal copy from Rev. Dr Lenworth Anglin, executive Chairman of the Church of God in Jamaica in January 2011.

56

crime and violence, and the need for truth and reconciliation.78 It suggested that the “societal phenomenon

of garrisons, if overcome, would show an immediate significant reduction in crime and violence”.79 The

document continued that ‘Churches are preparing a petition appealing to the government of Jamaica to

establish a truth commission, the church believes that truth and reconciliation is for the whole society’.

What is revolutionary about the document is not that it was initiated but that it strongly urged that a truth

commission was necessary in order to provide a better way forward for Jamaica. It is an elaborate

document that then goes on to outline the central objective and the role of the commission, government

and the church. Its central objective while well intentioned was problematic. The document itself has no

proper context that frames the discussion of truth commissions; by explaining where, how, when and why

have they been used.

The central objective to “would be to break the back of Crime and Violence and Corruption by going to the

root in which it hides underground”80 is not one seen in this study’s examination of truth commissions

across the world. The document owes much of its structure to the South African Truth Reconciliation

Commission, even the proposed names of the committees under the truth commission are adapted; human

rights violation, amnesty and the reparation and rehabilitation committees are identical. The technical

document also mimics the amnesty provisions that are examined under the South African Truth

Reconciliation Commission of amnesty for truth. In keeping with the inspiration of the South African Truth

Reconciliation Commission it argues that the Jamaican Truth Reconciliation Commission would be “a

necessary tool for forgiveness, healing and reconciliation.81 The obvious omission is that nothing in its

central objective aims to achieve or address justice.

Overall this proposal was a landmark effort. It attempted to localize the experience of South Africa with its

truth commission. Yet this was also its most egregious misstep. The experiences of each society must form

78 Technical document on TRC in Jamaica, 2006 p.1. Truth commissions however are never used as crime fighting mechanisms they are transitional justice or democratization mechanisms. Proper national security strategies and de-linking or depoliticizing crime, that is what helps to fight crime. Truth commissions probe deep historical divisions within societies. 79 Ibid, p.1 80 Ibid, p.2 81 Ibid.

57

the basis for how a truth commission is designed and administered. At the time of the proposal’s writing in

2006 a decade after the establishment of its truth commission, South Africa was still wrestling with

reconciliation. The proposal apart from failing to contextualize the work and value of truth commissions as

transitional justice instruments also failed to link them to democratization. Truth commissions are powerful

instruments of transition away from one kind of politics to a better more responsible one. However what the

proposal also failed to account for was that while truth commissions might be critical to effecting political

change they are not sufficient in achieving this.

The ultimate failure of the Miller proposal was that it never gathered the national momentum to mount a

serious consideration of a truth commission. While this cannot be attributed to the proposal or the authors,

it is clear that Jamaicans continue to think about a truth commission as a means of dealing with its past.

The Church has since then continued to be the chief advocate of a Jamaican truth commission. When Rev.

Miller was interviewed for this study he was more practical on the need for forgiveness, justice and healing

and clear on the reality that reconciliation is not an act of belief it requires a process.82 The report now

turns to an examination of the feasibility of a truth commission for Jamaica.

1. Prospects for a Jamaican Truth Commission from Above – By Legislation

A truth commission is a very specialized mechanism. It is often thought of as just a body set up to seek out

and investigate the truth about some event. Inherently, a truth commission is a mechanism designed to

examine the past of a country that has recently made the transition away from authoritarianism and human

rights violations and towards democracy and the upholding of the rule of law.83 If the majority of those

interviewed support a truth commission for Jamaica, are they arguing that Jamaica is undergoing a political

or post conflict transition? Second, if even it can be argued that a truth commission would be useful in

82 Rev. Al Miller interview, April 8, 2011. 83 Mark Freeman argues that “indeed one of their characteristics is that truth commissions are usually established during periods of political or post-conflict transition. Mark Freeman, Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006, p.4

58

addressing Jamaica’s truth and justice deficits even if there is no political transition what would such a

mechanism to achieve?

The answer to the first questions centres on the experiences of other countries with truth commissions.

Over thirty five (35) truth commissions have been utilized across the world.84 Almost all of these have been

used when there was a clear political transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime. When the

question was posed to several advocates of truth commissions they simply pointed out that May 2010

represents that transition point. While the May 2010 incursion has the potential to be a political transition

point this, it was never going to be systemic transition. It represents what can be called a divorce “decree

nisi but not decree absolute with crime”.85 Nonetheless a truth commission can surely be established in

contexts beyond a political and post-conflict transition. Grenada established a truth and reconciliation

commission out of its Commission of Enquiry Act in 2001. However the argument can be made as to

whether the curiosity of its founding made it a failure. So what other structural contexts could be critical for

a truth commission to be formed? To begin with Jamaica is a well established democracy that could be

characterized as having an independent judiciary and where the basic civil and political rights are

guaranteed. Nonetheless, while Jamaica is not an authoritarian regime moving to a democratic regime

there are grave problems that besmirch its democratic quality. As the research indicates crime and

violence, lack of proper accountability, lack of trust, lack of justice and poor leadership are major problems

in Jamaica. Most of these problems are justifiably traced to politics. A truth commission is always a political

instrument it is created by governments and often attempts to walk a thin line between punishing and

properly dealing with the past laying the foundation for a common future. A Jamaican truth commission

could be founded as a historical, memory project to open the past to intense scrutiny. It must be clear

84 Priscilla Hayner, who is the established authority on the matter, has forty truth commissions in her most recent work. However she has included what have been several commissions of Enquiry on her list. See Priscilla Hayner, Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and the Challenge of Truth Commissions. New York: Routledge Press 2010. 85 Jermaine McCalpin, “The Moral and Practical Relevance of a Jamaican Truth Commission”, unpublished manuscript, July 2010.

59

however that a truth commission is useless if it is just retrospective in its orientation. It must also be forward

looking.

The question that of necessity arises is, given the problems that Jamaicans have articulated, crime and

violence, lack of accountability, corruption, is a truth commission the best mechanism to address them?

Many will still say yes, a truth commission can address these things. This report posits that a truth

commission is a powerful mechanism if properly utilized. If one is to work in Jamaica in absentia the

political or post-conflict transition then it must be uniquely designed. It would have to be designed in such a

way that it becomes not a transitional justice mechanism but it becomes a governance and democratization

mechanism. In other words a Jamaican truth commission dealing with these major problems as articulated

by the research would have to be structured with the goal of properly assessing our political past in a

manner to embolden accountability, transparency, public trust, support for democracy, healing and

reconciliation and ultimately justice. There are clear indications that Jamaica is a heavily traumatized

democracy, that festering beneath the façade of democratic stability is the need to address the

consequences of political garrisons, tribalized violence, victimization, corruption and so forth.

The Church has been consistent sustained in its support of a truth commission for Jamaica. It collectively

argues that the truth will make us free, the truth brings healing and it restores, it forms the basis for

reconciliation and would help to makes Jamaicans more united. The challenge for the supporters of this

specific mechanism is to properly assess how such results can be inspired or directly achieved by a truth

commission. These indicators of the value of truth commissions are more “aspirational” than real, in

keeping with the mission of the church they are “declarations of faith”; “we believe truth telling will bring this

to our country”. A truth commission must be properly understood, designed and implemented to have a

long lasting and positive impact on Jamaica.

Another fundamental question to respond to was asked by an executive of the International Centre for

Transitional Justice, “what has prompted the calls for a truth commission, why now? And what can/will a

60

truth commission do that a Commission of Enquiry cannot?”86 The critical issue is to determine whether the

questions to be answered are best addressed by a truth commission. In other words a truth commission

may be desired but is it a practical mechanism in addressing the problems within a specific society. Can a

truth commission be a mechanism through which we deal with crime and violence? Are corruption and lack

of accountability best examined using a truth commission? This report concludes that while a truth

commission is morally valuable it must have practical value in order to be established.

The report now moves to examine some of the key considerations to be addressed when a country is

thinking of establishing a truth commission.

Key Considerations in Establishing a Truth Commission

a. Motivation

What it the primary motivation for establishing a truth commission? Should a truth commission be

established primarily because other countries have used one and it sounds like a good idea? 87 Truth

commissions are investigative bodies but they are not the only type of investigative bodies. If the

motivation consideration is settled then a country can continue to contemplate a truth commission.

b. Content

A critical consideration in establishing a truth commission is to determine what will be the subject matter.

Each commission has to determine what violations, atrocities, acts of repression etc it will address. There

has to be a balance between having too much content and too little. Each truth commission has to examine

this. In the case of Jamaica where this study has found strong support for a truth commission, the two main

issues that a commission would address are corruption and political tribalism. These are extremely vague

and massive categories. For a truth commission to be effective it has to have a manageable content.

86 Pablo DeGrieff, then Director of Research for the International Center for Transitional Justice in New York, interviewed by Jermaine O. McCalpin , April 16, 2008. 87 Jermaine McCalpin, “Prospects for a Truth Commission”, Sunday Gleaner, July 20,2008

61

Corruption and political tribalism/garrisons are fundamental problems but they would have to be properly

deconstructed.

c. Establishment

A fundamental consideration of truth commissions it to determine how it will be established. Generally, a

truth commission is created by the executive branch of government by presidential decree, or through an

Act of Parliament such as the legislature in South Africa or by the monarchy such as in Morocco. In

Jamaica’s case a truth commission is foreseeable through an Act of Parliament that is passed by the

legislature or by the Governor General’s exercise of his discretion, on the advice of the Prime Minister

under the existing Commission of Enquiry Act. Grenada created its truth and reconciliation commission

through its commission of Enquiry Act. Nonetheless, truth commissions and Commissions of Enquiry are

distinct apparatuses even if related. Commissions of Enquiry deal with specific events or actions of a public

institution and/or official.88 A truth commission by its very essence investigates patterns of abuse committed

over a specific period of time.

d. Mandate/Term of Reference

It is of great significance that in establishing a truth commission that there is a clear mandate. The terms of

reference must detail what will be the main periods of the country’s recent past that are to be examined?

There is no single accepted understanding of what is too long a term of reference. South Africa’s truth

commission covered gross violations of human rights committed between 1960 and 1994; Guatemala’s

Commissions examined violations between 1962 and 1996, Morocco’s between 1956 and 1999 and

Germany between 1949 and 1989. Haiti’s truth commission had one of the shortest periods of coverage,

1991-1994. What is important to note is that a truth commission could not examine three years within a

country’s history while leaving out the context of how militarism/authoritarianism came to characterize much

88 The Commission of Enquiry Act of Jamaica (27th March, 1873) Cap.68. Acts 42 of 1969 3rd Sch. 19 0f 1978

62

of Haiti’s recent history.89 It is necessary that each country properly select the major periods that it will

address in its commission’s work. Rev. Miller’s proposal declared it would examine “stories of violations,

criminality, and victimization committed between the periods under review (1965 –present)”.90 The initial

problem is why this period, in other words there has to be some justification for the mandate period. When

asked what period people would like to see addressed, many Jamaicans wanted a focus on the 1970’s and

the political polarization that marked that decade. Others wanted to examine from 1944 and the advent of

adult suffrage.91 Others want the mandate period to encompass from the 1980 to the present, using 1980

as the apogee of tribalized political violence. Significant discussion has to take place regarding this critical

issue of what period of Jamaica’s history would a truth commission cover.

In terms of a truth commissions powers, we must carefully explore what kinds of attributes a truth

commission should have. By their very nature truth commissions are non-judicial mechanisms, they often

have wide powers of investigation. With few exceptions however, truth commissions do not have the power

of subpoena and summons as well as search and seizure powers or witness protection. South Africa’s

Truth Reconciliation Commission had many of these powers and one may argue that given its

Commonwealth association, it utilized some of the powers of commissions of inquiry in establishing its truth

commission. However as we have seen given the experiences of the Manatt- Dudus Commission, the

powers may be in existence in the founding statute but it is the enforcement capacity that determines how

these powerful these provisions are.

e. How will it be funded/How much will it cost?

Another vexing issue is that of funding. Many truth commissions have ultimately failed because of resource

deficiencies in tandem with other procedural problems. Funding or financing of a truth commission is very

89 Jermaine McCalpin, “Freedom, Truth and Justice in the Caribbean: An Examination of the Haitian Truth Commission”, Global South, Special Issue, Volume 6, 1, 2012 (forthcoming). 90 Technical Document, 2006, p.6 91

Obika Gray’s work adroitly examines the dawn of politicized violence from competition for the first elections

held after the granting of adult suffrage. See Demeaned but Empowered: The Social Power of the Urban Poor in

Jamaica. Kingston, Jamaica: University of the West Indies Press, 2004.

63

crucial. While all truth commissions regardless of their funding will have limitations, these mechanisms are

costly enterprises. Nigeria’s truth commission which operated 1999- 2002 had and operating cost of over

$400,000 USD. South Africa’s truth commission had an operating budget of nearly $18 million USD.

Jamaica’s recent experience with the Manatt Commission of Enquiry which cost between $50 and 65

million JMD is instructive in projecting a cost for a truth commission. A truth commission deals with

systemic and systematic violations and abuses which would require extensive research and

documentation. According to Mark Freeman, “today’s typical truth commission budget tends to be in the

range of US 5-10 million.92

The issue of who will fund this is critical. The government of Jamaica may be inclined to argue that that too

costly an enterprise and not worth the money. Nonetheless some truth commissions such as in Argentina,

were entirely financed by the government, some have been financed by a mix of national and foreign

governments (e.g. Peru) and others by private foreign donors (e.g. Nigeria).93 It is important therefore to

seriously consider the funding mechanism as this goes a far way in determining the potential impact of a

truth commission. In Jamaica a funding mechanism that is not entirely from any one source but a

combination of governmental, private domestic and international as well as inter-governmental organization

would be best. In Jamaica that operating cost of 5 to 10 million USD may require an additional 2 million US

dollars just to sensitize the public. Within the operating cost one must also ensure that there are health and

psychological services included.

f. Who will be commissioners?

The experiences of the Manatt-Dudus Commission have strongly indicated that the selection and the

selection process of commissioners helps to critically determine the moral authority of a commission. A

truth commission given that it is more extensive than a commission of inquiry will require detailed criteria

and careful selection. While many major truth commissions such as in South Africa and those of Latin

92 Mark Freeman, Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness, 2006, pp.26-39. 93 Ibid.

64

America had religious chairs, their participation as commissioners must still meet the criterion of

impartiality.

South Africa when deciding to establish its truth commission asked for all South Africans to suggest

persons they believed could serve impartially and independently, although it would be the government that

decided on commissioners. Eventually the commissioners were drawn from a wide range of sectors, the

religious, academia, Non-Governmental Organizations, political groups, women’s organization and some

were international commissioners. The leadership of the Truth Reconciliation Commission was almost

never in question as Archbishop Tutu stood as a unifying figure.

Closer to home, both Haiti and Grenada’s truth commissions used a mixture of local and foreign

commissioners. In the case of Haiti there were three international commissioners one of whom was

Jamaican jurist Justice Patrick Robinson. The primary determinant is to ensure that impartiality and not

politicization is the modus operandi of the truth commission and this starts will careful selection of

commissioners. Jamaica would have to have a careful selection process that would examine domestic as

well as international commissioners. This report recommends that Jamaicans in the Diaspora be

considered for service on such a commission.

g. Who will be responsible/ liable for its findings?

With the establishment of a truth commission many fail to examine the need to address post-truth

commission implications. A truth commission may be viewed to be successful just by virtue of completing

its mandate and submitting a report. However if it only produces a report but has not impacted on the

practice of democracy and human rights within a country it might be viewed as being weak.94 Therefore the

question arises of who will be responsible for seeing to it that the findings and recommendations are

implemented after the body has concluded its work. who will be responsible for seeing to it that the findings

94 Eric Brahm argues that for all the metaphysical impacts we anticipate with truth commission, their impact is ultimately to be judged based on how they influence democracy and human rights. Eric Brahm, “Uncovering the Truth: Examining Truth Commission Success and Impact, International Studies Perspective,8,1, 2007 pp. 16-35.

65

and recommendations are implemented. Truth commissions have the power of recommendation but are

never designed to implement their own findings. Jamaica may want to consider along with a truth

commission a body exclusively charged with monitoring the implementation of the commission’s

recommendations and findings.

h. What will be its relationship to criminal prosecution?

Some countries have used a truth commission as a means of dealing with their past in such a way that

does not require large scale prosecution. In other words a truth commission has been used as a substitute

for criminal proceedings, aiming to achieve justice by other means. Argentina given its transition away from

military authoritarian rule in the 1980’s used its truth commission as a basis for eventually prosecuting

members of its military. In South Africa, unless a perpetrator applied for and was granted amnesty, the

testimonies at the truth commission hearings could become the basis of criminal prosecution. This report

suggests that given the context within which a Jamaican truth commission is likely to be formed, the issue

of its relationship to criminal prosecution has to be carefully examined.

i. What violations will be examined?

The research indicates that Jamaicans strongly support the idea of a truth commission. Beyond that

support however, what it needs to be addressed is what types of violations a Jamaican truth commission

would examine. As extensive as the South African Truth Reconciliation Commission was only a limited

number of occurrences between 1960 and 1994 were treated as “gross violations of human rights”. In other

words while the Apartheid state was a repressive police state, not every action was examined. In the end

only a limited number of violations were subject to the truth commission’s examination. Jamaica would

have to be clear as to what kinds of violations would be the subject of its truth commissions. This report

66

suggests that extrajudicial killings, politically induced violence, forced detainment and political repression

be included. The challenge will ultimately be to examine this list of violations with lawyers and human rights

practitioners.

j. What will it aim to achieve?

The very existence of a truth commission can be considered a monumental achievement. When a society

decides that it is going to confront the horrors of its past as a means to move forward this is no small feat.

Nonetheless, if a truth commission is to be successful it must have very precise aims and objectives. Most

truth commissions have operated to achieve two primary objectives:

a. To investigate and clarify serious violations of human rights in the past

b. To help to or suggest measures to prevent similar violation in the future.95

It is clear that truth commissions are designed to be backward as well as forward looking. Additionally,

some truth commissions have aimed to achieve national reconciliation (e.g. Chile and South Africa),

reconciliation between victims and perpetrators (e.g. Timor-Leste), criminal justice (e.g. Argentina),

dignifying of victims (Peru) and consolidation of peace and democracy (e.g. Democratic Republic of

Congo). Each country has to therefore determine what goals and objectives it sets for its truth commission

to achieve. The balance is between lofty goals and more tangible targets. One of the lessons many

societies considering truth commissions have internalized is this idea that reconciliation has to be not only

included in the name of the truth commission but must be its primary objective.96 Reconciliation can be

defined as “an end to enmity through forgiveness achievable only when perpetrators and beneficiaries of

past injustice acknowledge collective responsibility for wrongdoing, shed their prejudice and victims regain

their self-respect through the same process”.97 This definition strongly indicates that not only is

95 Freeman, 2006, p. 26-39 96 McCalpin, Prospects for a Truth Commission, Sunday Gleaner, July 20, 2008. 97 Rajeev Bhargava in Looking Back, Reaching Forward: Reflections on the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Charles Villa-Vicencio and Wilhelm Verwoerd (eds) London:Zed Books, 2000.

67

reconciliation a process, it is very indeterminate. Bhargava suggests that truth commissions should aim for

more practical and short term goals as reconciliation is a long term achievement that no truth commission

can hope to achieve during its operation. Instead he suggests that a truth commission should seek to help

establish a “minimally decent society” in the short term.98

Many Jamaicans who strongly advocate for a truth commission feel that reconciliation is an indispensable

part. The Christian Church, which predominates in Jamaica, given its emphasis on forgiveness, healing and

reconciliation often speak of truth commissions as aiming to achieve those goals. What the experience in

South Africa has taught us is that even well meaning religious values have to be practically translated into a

public domain if they are to be tenable. Reconciliation and healing are not to just be declarations of faith

they must be accompanied by a plan of action.

k. What are the consequences if it fails?

The final consideration in deciding whether or not to establish a Jamaican truth commission is what the

consequences are if it fails. All truth commissions start with great promise and the weight of expectations.

Some such as in the Philippines and Bolivia start their work, even complete it but no report is submitted.

Careful consideration must be made as to what are the implications should Jamaica establish a truth

commission and it fails. Would this push the society towards re-entrenchment of divisions and possible

even anarchy? Would a truth commission be worth the risk if all that happens is that the past and past

wounds are opened but no resolution or justice is achieved?

A truth commission has to be understood as both a moral as well as a practical mechanism in helping

societies confront its past. The South African Truth Reconciliation Commission had failed to account for the

fact that it is not just with revelation that healing comes but it must be accompanied with emotional and

psychological support and justice. Jamaica has a relatively stable democracy and it should be ensured that

a truth commission does not place this in jeopardy. 98 Ibid, note 94. Bhargava defines a minimally decent society as one governed by minimally moral rules, these rules are moral not because they promote a particular conception of the good life but because they prevent excessive wrongdoing or evil”.

68

Once a careful consideration is given to all these issues the choice of a truth commission for Jamaica

would be well within the range of possibility.

2. Truth Commission from Below – Initiation

Legislation is the only way that an official truth commission can be created. Nonetheless, the mechanism

does not have to be meaningful only as an exercise of legislative and executive power. The research

indicates that many persons are interested in a truth commission at the community level as helping to build

momentum to test out the viability for a national one, but also because many communities are in need of a

healing process. At the community level could address some longstanding conflict and grievances that may

have been initially created by national forces. However it is the communities that have to daily bear the

marks of this system of political violence and garrisonization. Organizations such as the Peace

Management Initiative and Violence Prevention Alliance and many others have helped to establish and

support community based truth-telling and reconciliation processes. It is important to note that the

significant way in which it has be monumental that many violence torn and conflict ridden communities

have benefitted from such informal truth commissions. However the primary challenge has been providing

institutional support in order to sustain and expand such processes.

Angela Stultz, director of the S-Corner Clinic in Waltham Park area of Kingston spoke of the power of truth-

telling and reconciliation at the community level. The model can be called the Community Peace and

Reconciliation Process (CPRP).99

The model utilized persons from outside of the conflict affected community who worked with all sub-groups

within the community to come to a common understanding of the violence and the causes of the conflict. It

was a truth telling exercise in that, once persons felt safe (no weapons we allowed in the proceedings)

persons began to open up acknowledging that wrongs were done in the past. Stultz contended that this

model of peace and truth-telling forced community members to examine their own actions, inactions and

99 Angela Stultz, interview, April 14, 2011.

69

complicity in the violence that dominated their community. The process then provided for the completion of

a project that would require unity and collaboration from rival factions. Men who had previously warred with

each other now had to work putting on a dance and to travel together to acquire material to make

infrastructure for the staging of the event. This is no small feat Stultz indicates, especially when some of

them would have never previously crossed each other’s path given the lines of demarcation or “no-cross”

zones in many inner-city communities.

The Community Peace and Reconciliation Process (CPRP) was a community’s attempt to stem the tide of

violence with community based intervention. It affected not only the participants in violence it seriously

impacted on the persons who were asked to assess the problem. When asked about the infrastructure in

place to sustain this peace, Stultz contended that weekly “reasoning sessions” were held. “It was where

people just meet and talk around some food and refreshments. It is clear that while they talk about

consciousness and self value, the message is clear that peace and unity are not achieved through one-off

events.100 The problem in many communities but also nationally has been lack of sustainability. The

primary goal of regular meetings is to give people a sense of being and worth that each person matters.

The South African concept of ubuntu; that people are only people through other people is the primary ethos

of such a community peace effort. Stultz felt that this grassroots peace and truth telling process should be

used in other communities that are torn by violence and underdevelopment. She was careful to point out

that sustained peace will never be achieved unless people’s capacities and their communities are

developed. “Sometimes the youths want more than talk; basic needs have to be met”.101

Stultz believes that unless the youths who are the primary participants in violence in communities are

provided with viable options, there can be no peace. “When people have a sense of being they can

understand that the money that politicians will offer, you won’t be tempted to take it and go do anybody

100 Stultz, April 14, 2011. 101

Ibid.

70

anything because they will know that the money won’t last, but the war will if you start it”.102 Stultz was

quick to point out that there needs to be many partners in ensuring that the peace is sustained in these

communities. She singled out the Church by arguing that “the Church can do much to facilitate the process

of community peace and reconciliation. It is the church that can help us to take off our alter ego and see

people as people and not as animals. The church must help to humanize and transform people’s lives”.103

This community based process of truth and reconciliation can certainly expand to other communities and

could provide inspiration for a national process. Certainly there are translation challenges as to how to

move from the community to the nation. However that ought not to derail the process. Once communities

begin to transform, the political directorate will be forced to understand that the probe into the past is not to

incriminate but to render justice and healing. The obvious challenge for this Community Peace and

Reconciliation Process (CPRP) is to provide an institutional structure that can help to found identical

processes in other communities. However it certainly has the potential to provide the nation with a model of

national healing and reconciliation.

3. Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) On Truth Commission

A third option could be that civil society initiates its own “truth commission”. This could be an initiative of the

Church that has long championed the need for a truth commission in Jamaica. While it would not be an

official (i.e. government founded) commission there are no limitations to the potential impact of such an

unofficial truth commission. The challenge would be to determine what would be the scope, nature and

references of such a commission. Funding would primarily have to come from non-governmental

organizations and private donors. The Brazilian Catholic Church during the military regimes of the 1970’s

and 80’s sponsored the work of such a Non-Governmental Organization truth commission. So there is

precedence to such a mechanism. Given that it is not a legislatively created investigative body,

implementation of its findings and recommendations would be a challenge. The church could also partner

102 Ibid. 103 Stultz, Ibid.

71

with human rights organizations given that the subject matter of all truth commissions has been violations

of human rights. Local human rights organizations such as Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights

(IJCHR), Families Against State Terrorism (FAST) and Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ) in partnership with

international organizations such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International could work with the

Church in establishing a Non-Governmental Organization truth commission. Such a body would have to

ensure that it is the probing of human rights abuses and the requisite solutions to them that would dominate

its mission. This report believes this is certainly an option that is quicker to mount and could also prompt

the government to establish an official truth commission. Nonetheless it has to be carefully considered.

A critical issue to contend with using such a mechanism is the public skepticism that often greets the work

of human rights organizations. Many Jamaicans often feel that these human rights organizations are

disconnected from the people who cause they claim to champion. Nonetheless this is not a coup de grace

for an NGO truth commission. These sectors of civil society and the umbrella organization, the Jamaica

Civil Society Coalition must publicly advocate for a truth commission. An unofficial truth commission is not

inimical to a government founded truth commission.

4. Thematic or Socio-historical Commission of Enquiry104

Jamaica’s most recent experience with a Commission of Enquiry may have caused some persons to

assume that such a mechanism is meaningless. Nonetheless this report believes that a carefully crafted

and selected commission of enquiry can have some powerful impact on Jamaica’s democracy and

governance.

By definition, a commission of enquiry is a public body constituted by statute that allows for the

examination of single events or institutions. It is primarily used in Westminster style parliamentary

democracies. However while they generally examine single events there is nothing to suggest that they

104 Mark Freeman provides a novel and comprehensive assessment of possible variations of commissions of inquiry. Freeman 2006, pp.53-59.

72

could not examine a single theme across time (thematic) or an important period in the country’s history

(socio-historical).

A thematic commission of inquiry, for example the Commission of Enquiry Established to Examine Political

Tribalism and Garrisons could assess the longitudinal effects (across time) of occurrences of a certain

theme. In Jamaica this report suggests that a thematic commission of inquiry could be used to probe

political tribalism and the origins, formation and sustenance of garrisons. This in turn would provide a

comprehensive discussion on the nexus of crime, politics and economic underdevelopment. The research

indicates that a significant number of respondents want to have a truth commission address political

tribalism and corruption. This might indeed be better addressed by a thematic Commission of Enquiry. The

advantage of a thematic Commission of Enquiry vis-à-vis a truth commission in addressing garrison

development and political tribalism is that it would not necessarily require or rely on personal testimonies of

persons involved in the establishment of such a system. Some of the architects and guardians are dead but

others are still alive. In other words the historical record could be probed and seriously engaged and would

not depend on whether persons appear or not. The thematic commission of enquiry could have identical

powers given to all Commissions of Enquiry according to the Act, which includes the power of summons

and subpoena. Given the experiences of the present Commission, this report strongly recommends a

revision of the Act to especially increase the penalty for refusing to appear when subpoenaed to do so.

There is potential value in a thematic commission of enquiry and it certainly could get to the truth of political

tribalism without exclusively relying on individual testimony. Many documents are in the public domain such

as those tabled in parliament and the committees of the legislature which might be relied as the foundation

of the work of the specialized commission of enquiry.

73

5. Lustration and Vetting

The most controversial truth-telling mechanism this report examines is that of lustration and vetting. East

and Central Europe practiced this as a means of dealing with the past in these societies coming as they

were out of Nazism and communism. According to Monica Nalepa lustration refers to limiting the access to

public office of politicians with an authoritarian past that were deemed to have participated in human rights

violations in a previous era.105 Freeman defines it as “wide-scale dismissal and disqualification primarily on

the basis of party affiliation, political opinion or association with a former secret service, rather than on the

basis of one’s individual records”106. Vetting is similar to lustration and may be defined as “the practice of

screening individuals responsible for serious misconduct from police and prison services and similar

institutions”.107

In Jamaica’s situation lustration would mean barring people from holding public offices if they have been

deemed to have participated in corruption, political violence and so forth. And vetting would be to screen

present institutions and offices especially those of the police and military to establish whether members

have participated in human rights violations and if they are founded to have participated they could be

dismissed.

It is clear that there would be dramatic public effect to the extent that many persons could be subject to

dismissal and banning from certain offices. Such measures of lustration and vetting have been used in

former communist countries where there has been a clear and decisive break with the past. Even then they

have been controversial and problematic. This report believes that such measures while strong on truth

revelation would not be entirely effective given that depending on how participation in the past is assessed

and determined there may be an uncertain result. Such mechanisms of lustration and vetting may also lead

105 Monica Nalepa, “To Punish the guilty and protect the innocent? Designing institutions of transitional justice, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 20, 2, 2008 pp.221-246. 106 Freeman p. 64 107 Ibid

74

to acts of revenge and conflict especially given that Jamaica has not yet made a clear and decisive break

from its politically divisive and violent past.

6. Use and strengthen existing Public Accountability Mechanisms

Several persons who declared that they were not in support of a truth commission did so on the basis of

arguing that there are existing accountability mechanisms such as the Commission of Enquiry Act, which

should be used to the their fullest extent. Justice Henderson Downer, Deputy Children’s Advocate argues

that “calls for truth and reconciliation commission in Jamaica may just be escapism. We need to examine

our present commissions, are they properly funded are they getting to the truth?108 The point he appear to

be making is to say why we need more truth-telling mechanisms they already exist, we need to strengthen

then. And if we feel they have failed as many persons have felt about the Manatt- Dudus Commission, it

may not be that the mechanism that is inherently flawed but rather the specific conditions under which this

Commission was formed. He continued, “too often we learn to copy institutions in other countries without

examining the historical, social and political backgrounds as to why these institutions are necessary and not

asking whether we have institutions that can do the job as specific instances arise”.109

From this report’s examination of truth-telling options is it clear that Jamaica has many options for moving

forward if there is a real desire to address some of the major sociopolitical and economic problems in

Jamaica’s past. A truth commission, uniquely designed holds much potential once it is based on the key

considerations this report has examined. Grassroots mechanisms and unofficial truth commissions are also

to be strongly considered. The novel idea of a thematic commission of enquiry holds great promise if it is

possible to overcome the disaffection with the extant Commission and focus on the potential that lies within

the mechanism itself. Lustration and vetting are radical mechanisms that hold serious risks but should not

be discarded as options. The belief that the mechanisms exist to help to transform Jamaica is grounded in

108 Justice Downer interview, March 15, 2011. 109 Ibid.

75

reality. One must however assess whether these mechanisms have been so discredited that new ones

need to be established.

This report has outlined the clear need for a more careful examination of a the prospects for a Jamaican

truth commission as viable mechanism through which Jamaica can move forward away from political

tribalism and division and towards a future that is characterized by meaningful accountability of elected

representatives to the citizens, of greater transparency in the affairs of government and its institutions, of

proper participation of citizens in the administration of power in the country, of a spirited upholding of the

rule of law and justice. The aspirational aspects of a truth commission must not be discounted, as a nation

Jamaica needs healing and reconciliation. However the examination of truth commissions across the world

points to the reality that justice has to be a prominent goal if both these are to be possible. The justice that

a truth commission hopes for is one that is restorative; a lot of Jamaicans have lost or rather had their

dignity taken from them through crime and violence and abuse of state power. The words of the motto,

“justice truth be ours forever” must be the organizing ethos of a Jamaican truth commission. Truth without

justice can never lead to trust and a democracy without trust can never be a meaningful democracy.

The report therefore believes that while a national truth commission is the primary option on the table, an all

or nothing approach cannot be assumed. The pursuit of a national truth commission should not offset an

exploration of the other options on the table. There is convincing evidence within the report that suggests

that if truth commissions are established at a community level it may positively impact they may positively

impact the prospects for a national truth commission. Finally, this report moves to make some

recommendations on how Jamaica is to proceed given what the study has revealed.

76

Recommendations

1. The Funding and Administration of a National Study

While this study has been a landmark one into the examination of the prospects for a truth commission and

other truth-telling mechanisms in Jamaica, it was a small exploratory study. This report therefore

recommends that a larger more national study be conducted to examine the feasibility of a Jamaican truth

commission or related truth telling mechanisms. Such an effort will require funding. This project was funded

by the United Nations Development Programme in Jamaica under its Governance Unit. We strongly urge

that this larger study and research be actively pursued not long after this report has been submitted. We

anticipate that research and administrative costs for such a study (given the cost of this present one) would

be in the range of US $175,000 to US $250,000. A truth commission is an important exercise that must be

entered into with careful consideration. This larger study would provide the necessary stakeholders in

government, civil society and international partners with the requisite information to determine the best way

to address the problems articulated in this initial study.

2. Public and community consultation/ sensitization

Related to the efforts to mount a larger study, this report recommends that an intense national and

community consultation/sensitization be conducted in anticipation of the need for a truth commission.

Effective truth commissions are always strong on the dual measure of publicity and accessibility.

Jamaicans must be made aware not just of the experiences of other countries but to inquire of the people

as to possible approaches such a truth commission could utilize given Jamaica’s unique circumstances.

This information must be accessible through a variety of media; audio, visual, print, social media etc. This

public education campaign while necessary to be done by the government must not be left up to them

exclusively. Civil society must ensure that such a mechanism enjoys broad based support. An effective

truth commission cannot be the dream of a few people. The public has to buy into it.

77

The value of truth must be understood as intrinsic as well as instrumental. The truth is necessary for

citizens to trust and have confidence in their elected representatives. Consequently, the truth of the

occurrences in our past is really the only basis on which we can trust political leadership, if citizens do not

know the truth; too many lies in circulation will mean they have no reason to trust.

The public consultation and sensitization much also include a specific inquiry into what kinds of issues that

Jamaicans would want to see a truth commission address, and if they believe that truth is necessary for

Jamaica to be a better governed country. This report believes that such a public sensitization and

education campaign on supporting truth telling mechanisms is going to require funding; however this

process is necessary before one mounts a truth commission. If we have learnt anything from the South

African and other truth commissions it is that unless there is a public ownership of the truth commission

process it will not be successful. We believe that such an education campaign island wide could cost

between 10 and 15 million JMD. This funding could be acquired through private sector and

intergovernmental funding.

A truth commission cannot gain traction unless people are aware of it and in order for people to be made

aware they will have to be educated and in order to be sensitized and educated funding is required.

3. Strengthening of civil society

This report believes that the role of civil society is critical to whatever truth-telling mechanism is chosen by

Jamaica. Several of the respondents to this study while arguing that civil society especially the Church was

not doing enough were also careful to point out that the Church is going to be indispensable to any efforts

to achieve greater levels of truth-telling in lieu of accountability and transparency. Civil society especially

the recently constituted Jamaica Civil Society Coalition pressured the government to appoint a commission

of enquiry. As one interviewee argued “the work is not over, we as civil society cannot allow it to just be

78

whitewashed, we must insist that something meaningful comes out of it.110 The Church under such groups

as the Churches Umbrella Group and other religious bodies must see it as their mission to pressure

government into accountability. Governments especially those who that are not in transition will have little

incentive to on their own volition establish a civil society. Human rights organizations who have continued

to keep government in check regarding its human rights transgressions must continue to do so. What is

however required, is a broad spectrum of civil society interests to be united in their challenge against

political corruption and unresponsive government.

4. Strengthen existing Public Accountability Mechanisms

This report believes that existing public accountability mechanisms are not to be thought of as irrelevant in

the event a truth commission is established. They must be understood as complements to such a

mechanism. The public bodies dedicated to ensuring governmental accountability would strengthen the

institutional framework of a truth commission. It might also be that such bodies could be relied on the

monitor the implementation of a truth commission’s recommendations.

The present Commission of Enquiry has also served to highlight the need for a reform of the Commission

of Enquiry legislation. The penalties for failure to respond to a subpoena were wantonly disregarded. Such

a revision of the act would mean that greater levels of sanctions may exact greater levels of compliance

with public accountability mechanisms. A Commission of Enquiry in its letter and spirit has many powers,

what is lacking within the structure of their operation is the power of enforcement. Commissions of enquiry

have a judicial advantage over truth commissions that could make them even the more desirable.

110

Robert Stephens, April 8, 2011.

79

5. Greater level of publicity and accessibility of the Report

Unless this report is widely accessible and the information contained within publicized we cannot reliably

measure its potential to impact the establishment of truth telling mechanisms for strengthening governance.

The partnership between the United Nation Development Programme and the Jamaica Council of

Churches must ensure that this report is zealously circulated to its constituents. It is the product of

collaboration for strengthening governance and democracy as a national building project. Truth-telling

mechanisms must not be thought of being in vogue they are meaningful means through which societies

transform their political practice. Unless the contents of this report are widely circulated and disseminated,

with all its potential and landmark assessment it would have failed to have any practical value.

80

Conclusion

The prospects for truth telling mechanisms in Jamaica are still encouraging. Citizens want to know the truth

of political corruption, garrisons, crime and violence, and general political and economic underdevelopment.

This report was the first study of its kind to qualitatively assess the views of Jamaicans regarding truth

commissions as social experiments geared towards not just intrinsic truth telling but more importantly

towards emboldening democracy and governance. The findings suggest however that while truth telling

mechanisms especially a truth commission is desired, the mechanism itself is not well understood. This

deficit of application and context is best rectified through public education and sensitization and certainly a

larger study which this initial research will form the basis of. Jamaicans may have felt generally negatively

about the Manatt Commission of Enquiry but a larger study once the Commission’s report is submitted will

be better to indicate if their lack of support of the Manatt Commission is to be equated with their lack of

support for commissions of enquiry and truth commissions. The latter issue has been preliminarily

assessed by this research that indicated that most Jamaicans support the idea of a truth commission.

The mantra of “no justice, no peace” that was popular during the civil rights protests in the US in the 1960’s

is applicable to our Jamaican reality. This report proffers the truism “no truth, no trust”. Unless leadership at

all levels of our society is willing enough to be accountable to the governed, they will never acquire their

trust. Institutions that people do not trust are not supported by them. We are not prophesying the demise of

democracy as a form but it is certainly foreseeable that high levels of dissatisfaction with political leadership

may lead to an abandonment of the “politics as usual”. We are hopeful that truth and trust will become the

basis on which citizens respond to each other and the litmus test by which we support political and other

leadership. Trust must not just be an article of faith it must also be grounded in demonstration. There is no

meaningful democracy unless citizens feel that government rules in their interest and that governance is

administered for all.

81

Appendix A – List of Interviewees and Focus Groups

List of Interviewees:

1. Earl Witter- Public Defender of Jamaica

2. Reverend Dr. Paul Gardener- Minister of Religion and President of the Jamaica Council of Churches (JCC)

3. Stacey Mitchell- Fraser- Lawyer, Chairperson of the National Spiritual Assembly of Bahais Jamaica and

Secretary of the Spiritual Assembly of Bahai of Kingston

4. Tracy- Ann Brown- Treasurer of the National Spiritual Assembly of Bahais Jamaica

5. Donna Parchment- Brown- Lawyer, CEO Dispute Resolution Foundation

6. Professor Fredrick Hickling- Mental Health Practitioner, Professor of Community Health and Psychiatry,

University of the West Indies, Mona Campus

7. Arlene Harrison- Henry- Chairperson for the Independent Jamaica Council for Human Rights

8. Owen Ellington- Commissioner of Police of Jamaica

9. Mary Clarke- Lawyer, Human Rights Practitioner, Retired Head of Children’s Advocate

10. Jennifer Campbell- President of the Press Association of Jamaica

11. Angela Stultz- Administrator for the Rose Town Library and Director of the S-Corner Clinic

12. Yvonne McCalla- Sobers- Retired Teacher, Management Consultant, Civil Society, Community and Human

Rights Practitioner, Head of Families Against State Terrorism (FAST)

13. Dr. Christine Cummings- Lecturer in Political Institutions and Caribbean Politics in the Department of Government at the University of the West Indies, Mona Campus

14. Dr. Clinton Hutton- Lecturer in the Political Philosophy in the Department of Government at the University of

the West Indies, Mona Campus.

15. Professor Anthony Harriott- Director of the Institute Criminal Justice and Security, University of the West

Indies, Mona Campus

16. Robert Stephens- Executive Member for Jamaicans United for Sustainable Development, Jamaica Civil Society Coalition

82

17. Pastor Errol Bolt- Pastor of Kencot Christian Fellowship

18. Reverend Al Miller- Pastor of The Fellowship Tabernacle Church, Head of the National Transformation

Programme

19. Carole Narcisse- Convener, Jamaica Civil Society Coalition

20. Justice Henderson Downer- Lawyer, Retired Judge, Deputy Children’s Advocate

List of Interviewees According to Sector

Academia

Dr. Christine Cummings

Prof. Anthony Harriott

Professor Frederick Hickling

Dr. Clinton Hutton

Prof. Brian Meeks

Legal

Mrs. Mary Clarke

Justice Henderson Downer

Mrs. Arlene Harrison-Henry

Dr. Stacey Mitchell- Fraser

Mrs. Donna Parchment- Brown

83

Civil Society

Yvonne McCalla- Sobers

Carole Narcisse

Robert Stephens

Community Based Organizations

Angela Stultz

Government

Owen Ellington

Human Rights

Mary Clarke

Arlene Harrison- Henry

Yvonne McCalla- Sobers

Media

Jennifer Campbell

Mental Health Practitioner

Professor Frederick Hickling

Religious

Pastor Errol Bolt Dr. Tracy- Ann Brown

Reverend Dr. Paul Gardner

Reverend Al Miller

Mrs. Stacey Mitchell- Fraser

84

List of Focus Groups Conducted:

1. August Town- St. Andrew

2. Trench Town- Kingston

3. Peace Centre- Kingston

4. S- Corner- Kingston

5. Santa Cruz- St. Elizabeth

6. Women’s’ Centre- Kingston

7. University of the West Indies (UWI)- Kingston

8. Private Sector Organization of Jamaica (PSOJ)-Kingston

85

Appendix B

Expert Interview Questions of the Truth and Justice Action Group (TJAG) in

partnership with the United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)

1. What would you say is the most serious problem facing Jamaica today?

2. How do you think this is best solved or addressed?

3. Would you say that part of the problem is a crisis of political leadership, manifested in lack of

proper accountability mechanisms?

4. Do you believe that the present Commission of Inquiry is the appropriate mechanism to deal with

the Manatt and Dudus extradition fallout?

5. Can you expand on your response, why or why not?

6. What is one or two things that you think are most lacking in our democracy?

7. What would be an appropriate mechanism to address them?

8. How important and in what ways are the values of respect, transparency and truth related to the

substance of democracy?

9. What do you think of repeated calls in Jamaica about a truth commission or other truth-telling

mechanisms?

10. Do you support such calls? And what specifically in the way of effect do you think this will have on

our democracy?

11. And what effects do you think this would have on our democracy?

86

Focus Group Questions of the Truth and Justice Action Group (TJAG) in partnership

with the United Nation Development Programme (UNDP)

1. What would you say is the biggest problem facing Jamaica today?

2. What are some of the possible solutions to the problems?

3. How does truth, trust and justice relate to democracy?

4. How do you feel about the Manatt- Dudus Commission of Inquiry?

5. What do you think is the possible worth of a truth commission at your community level or nationally?

6. If parliament passed a bill to establish a national- truth telling mechanism such as a truth commission, what do

you think should be some of the things it should address?

7. Do you have anything else that you would like to share about the prospects for a more truthful and just

Jamaican society?

87

Appendix C

DEMOGRAPHIC INFORMATION

FOCUS GROUP

(1) AGE __________

(2) GENDER MALE ( ) FEMALE ( )

(3) STATUS SINGLE ( ) MARRIED ( ) DIVORCED ( ) COMMON- LAW ( ) WIDOWED ( )

(4) AREA OF RESIDENCE ________________________________________________________________

(5) EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND- LAST SCHOOL ATTENDED

ELEMEMTARY ( ) PRIMARY ( ) SECONDARY ( ) VOCATIONAL ( ) TERTIARY ( )

OTHERS ___________________________________________

(6) SOCIO- ECONOMIC STATUS LOWER CLASS ( ) WORKING CLASS ( ) LOWER MIDDLE CLASS ( ) MIDDLE CLASS ( )

UPPER MIDDLE CLASS ( ) LOWER UPPER CLASS ( ) UPPER CLASS ( )

(7) a. RELIGION _______________________________ b. IF IDENTIFIED CHRISTIANITY, PLEASE INDICATE THE DENOMINATION ASSOCIATED WITH:

_________________________________________________

(8) OCCUPATION_________________________________________________________________

88

Appendix D

89

Demographics of Focus Groups

90

91

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

Bibliography

Benhabib, Seyla. Democracy and Difference: Contesting the Boundaries of the Political . New Jersey:

Princeton University Press, 1996.

Brahm, Eric. "Uncovering the Truth: Examining Truth Commission Success and Impact." International

Studies Perspective, 2007: 16-35.

Brahm, Eric Wiebelhaus. Truth Commission and Transitional Societies: The impact on human rights and

democracy. Ohio: Ohio University Press, 2001.

Bronkhorst, Daan. A Guide to Truth Commissions and Transitional Justice ( second edition). Amsterdam,

the Netherlands, 2006.

Brooks, Roy L.. (edited) When Sorry When Sorry Isn't Enough:The Controversy over Apologies and

Reparations for Human Injustice. New York: New York University Press, 1999.

Cross, Red. International Review of the Red Cross: Humanitarian debate: Law, policy, action: Truth and

Reconciliation Commissions. ICRC, 2006.

Elster, Jon. Closing The Books: Transitional Justice In Historical Perspective. New York : Cambridge

University Press , 2004.

Espeut, Peter. "Blood on their Hands." Daily Gleaner, October 3, 2001.

Freeman, Mark. Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness . Cambridge,: Cambridge University Press,

2006.

—. Truth Commissions and Procedural Fairness. . New York: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Gray, Obika. Demeaned but empowered: the social power of the urban poor in Jamaica. Kingston:

University of the West Indies, 2004.

Harriott, Anthony. Organizational Crime and Politics in Jamaica: Breaking the Nexus. Kingston: University

of the West Indies Press, 2007.

Hayner, Priscilla B. "International Guidelines for the creation and operation fo truth commissions: a

preliminary." Law and Contemporary Problems (Duke University School of Law) Vol. 59, no. 4 (1996): 173-

180.

Hayner, Priscilla B. "Truth Commissions: An Overview – (Fifteen Truth Commissions – 1974 – 1994: A

Comparative Stud." Human Rights Quarterly (John Hopkins University Press), 1994: 597-655.

—. Unspeakable Truth: Facing the Challenges of Truth Commissions . New York: Routledge, 2002.

—. Unspeakable Truths: Transitional Justice and The Challenge of Truth Commissions ( second Edition) .

New York: Routledge, 2011.

James, Wilmot and Linda Van De Vijver (eds). After the TRC: Reflections on truth and reconciliation in

South Africa. Routledge: New York, 2009.

99

McCalpin, Jermaine O. "Justice Under Contraints: The Nature of Transitional Justice In Deeply Divided

Societies." Unpublished dissertation.Providence: Brown University, 2006.

McCalpin, Jermaine O. "The Moral and Practical Relevance of a Jamaican Truth Commission."

Unpublished, July 2010.

Miller, Merrick (Al). Conceptual Technical Document For The Establishment of A truth and Reconciliation

Commisssion in Jamaica. Technical Paper, Kingston: Unpublished, 2006.

Nalepa, Monica. "To Punish the guilty and protect the innocent? Designing institutions of transitional

justice." Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2008: 221-246.

Roht- Arriaza, Naomi and Javier Mariezcurrena. Transitional Justice in the Twenty- First Century. New

York: University Press, 2006.

Rotberg, Robert I. and Dennis Thompson. (eds), Truth v Justice: The Morality of Truth Commissions.

Sen, Amartya. Development as Freedom. . New York: Anchor Press, 2000.

Villa- Vicencio Charles, and Wilhelm Verwoerd . Looking Back Reaching Forward:Reflection on Truth and

Reconciliation Commission of South Africa. Cape Town: University of Cape Town Press, 2000.

Waller Lloyd, and.Lawrence Powell. Probing Jamaica’s Political Culture”, Volume1, Main Trends in the

July-August 2006 Leadership and Governance Survey, Centre for Leadership and Governance. Kingston:

University of the West Indies, 2007.