The world view has changed dramatically since 1987 when Ronald Reagan, the leader of the West, issued the challenge to Mikhail Gorbachev, the leader of the East, to "tear down this (Berlin) wall" - the in-your-face symbol of the harsh and "impenetrable" nature of the Cold War divide.

This week, November 9-11, marks the 20th anniversary of President Gorbachev's giant-step response in 1989. That act and Nelson Mandela's transfer from the prison cell to rise to the presidency of South Africa are easily defended as two of the lasting reasons for the sea-change in how humankind and the world have been viewed since the final decade of the 20th century.

That symbol of the "Iron Curtain" - as Winston Churchill famously declared, in the late 1940s, that "has descended across the Continent" - was eventually to be torn down by the very people it was meant to divide. Gorbachev, of course, had already acted on a promise to launch programmes of glasnost (openness) and perestroika (restructuring), with the aim of making the state more efficient and less corrupt.

public discontent

"Golding ... insincere." - File

It is recorded that this resulted in public discontent and nationalistic urges among the Soviet Union's satellite republics and, after surviving a coup attempt, he resigned from the presidency two years later in 1991. However, his positive answer to the challenge of President Reagan had caused mankind to exhale collectively. Gorbachev's sincerity might have been questioned but the conventional wisdom is that he has withstood that test.

Jamaica now faces its own 'Iron Curtain'. Our Berlin wall is a wall of insincerity. Mr Golding, Jamaica's leader at this time, has to set the process in motion to begin to tear down this wall.

How do I mean? Well, the 'IMF is here', there has been a parting of the ways between the central bank governor and the authorities, the commissioner of police has resigned, the Opposition will not support the crime bills, Standard and Poor's has a malicious intent, and never for a moment forget that it is the fault of the previous administration. We have been told all of this and more by Mr Golding and his Government, and in strident tones.

All right, the people have so been told. What's next? Where is the vision as to where we go from here? What is to be the new source for the increasing number of idle hands to occupy themselves in useful work? Does the present administration have the moral authority to urge the people to assist in the fight against crime? What about the integrity of the Parliament itself? What is the programme - to do something, anything? Where is the 'stimulus package'? Where, in short, is the hope?

deep tension

One of the most open secrets in Jamaica over the last two years has been the deep tension between the minister of finance and the central bank governor. From all that had been said, the understanding and the widely held view was that the divide was as a result of contending positions relating to the course(s) to be adopted concerning fiscal and monetary policy, the interest rate regime and the protection of the dollar.

There was not a mumbling word, certainly not in the public domain, touching and concerning anything to do with the salary and allowance package of the governor. Golding's effort in the House of Representatives on Tuesday would have borne the stamp of sincerity if he had told Jamaicans that "the Government and the governor are not of one mind, in principle, in these negotiations with the IMF and the approaches to be taken on the economic front. In addition, the Government could no longer countenance the unconscionable salary package of the governor."

Has the Prime Minister 'come clean', as he had been invited by the Opposition to do, prior to his offering on Tuesday? He had railed, lest we forget, against the governor's salary package whilst in Opposition. Having taken over the reins of power, with the governor of the central bank as the craven beneficiary under an "embarrassing contract of employment", as he said, he and his Government waited until over two years in the life of the administration, with 'the IMF here', to announce to them and the world that they cannot live with such an arrangement.

Perhaps, in this challenging season, not many persons would quickly jump to hold the governor's brief on that score, even though there might be cogent arguments. However, as far as the Government coming clean is concerned, as it used to be said at the end of each episode of an old radio or television series, "Tell me some more fairy tales". Golding must begin to tear down this wall of insincerity!

If Jamaicans remember nothing else about the short tenure of Commissioner Hardley Lewin, they are not likely to forget his warning references to the link between politics and crime in his homeland. That is what stays with me, coming out of his very last press conference.

The prime minister said the commissioner gave no reason for wishing to leave, but that the Government was not satisfied with the performance of the force under his leadership in tackling the monster of crime. All right, but certainly all well-thinking Jamaicans, at home and in the diaspora, and all men and women of goodwill across the globe, would wish that our leader of Government address the assertions of the commissioner relating to the link between politics and crime.

For example, does he agree with the commissioner that there is such a link and that it exists in the kind of proportions that prompted the person in the forefront of the charge to fight the crime monster to speak to the phenomenon publicly? If the answer is 'yes', does he think that something should be done about it?

moral authority

If the answer is 'yes'', would not the people of Jamaica be entitled to enquire of him, making use of one of his favourite phrases, whether he is of the view that he and his Government possess the moral authority to begin the process to tear down this wall?

This wall of insincerity stretches into Mr Golding's and the Government's constant accusation that the Opposition has stood in the way of the so-called Crime Bills being passed. So, let the full story be told. It is true that the Opposition agreed to give its support to the Government in the initiative. Three warning signs were identified for the Government to be prepared to address.

There was the observation that the two pieces of the legislation that would require the co-operation of the Opposition were to be enacted by the use of Section 50 of the Constitution. A bill, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, already tabled in the House of Representatives, proposed the repeal of Section 50. The awkwardness, perhaps the questionable procedure, involved in such a course was pointed out.

It was also strongly urged that, even before the bills came to be tabled, the views of civil society and, in particular, the stakeholders in the justice system be sought. Third, it was suggested that the Government plan a careful public education programme to seek to convince the people of the efficacy of the move that was contemplated.

The Bills were duly tabled and referred to a joint select committee of parliament, under the chairmanship of the minister of justice and the public was invited to give their views. The stakeholders, in their presentations before the select committee, took strong objection to several of the proposals made in the bills and some Opposition members of the committee sought to find a compromise position, with some success.

A report of the deliberations of that joint select committee was tabled in the House of Representatives as long ago as December last year. That report presented by the chairman was not signed by the Opposition members because it provided no guidance to Parliament as to how it might proceed. The report itself has no coherent message or suggested path. It is jumbled. I dare the prime minister to decipher that report and explain it to the Parliament and the public.

So, on what basis does the Government continue this self-delusion and constant presentation of an image that the Opposition has stood in its way?

In this our dark hour of social and economic unease, we are obliged to expect our leader to be sincere, understanding, for example, that "tact is the knack of winning a point without creating an enemy'. That principle was lost on the prime minister, once again, on Tuesday in the House of Representatives.

freedom and peace

When President Reagan spoke at Brandenburg gate, near the Berlin wall in 1987, he suggested, "There is one sign the Soviets can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of freedom and peace. General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalisation, come here to this gate! Mr Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall".

On the 20th anniversary of President Gorbachev's response, the suggestion is being made to Golding that there is one sign he and his Government can make that would be unmistakable, that would advance dramatically the cause of extricating ourselves from this tunnel.

Mr Golding, if you practise openness, if you seek cooperation and the help and confidence of the people, if you wish to be a part of the process of the promised 'restructuring', begin to come clean, Mr Golding, tear down this wall of insincerity!

A J Nicholson is Opposition spokesman on justice. Feedback may be sent to columns@ gleanerjm.com.