WHEN the deputy chief minister and the racist ‘joke’ story broke in November, this newspaper suggested that if he wanted to survive, the best course of action was to resign. Now that the official report of the incident has come from the States Assembly and Constitution Committee, it is clear that the matter has worsened for him quite considerably.

Stripped to essentials, this is all about a senior political leader’s judgement and – as the conduct panel and Assembly and Constitution Committee’s involvement shows – accountability.

What the official report indicates is that it has been investigating a man whose judgment is lacking, and that is without having looked into the claims that the minister was earlier advised not to tell the ‘joke’.

The reason is reminiscent of Gulliver’s Travels, in which Irish writer and satirist Jonathan Swift quotes Gulliver in the following way: ‘I said the thing which was not. (For they [the horse people, the Houyhnhnms] have no word in their language to express lying or falsehood.)’

The States Members Conduct Panel expresses it rather differently in dismissing the deputy chief minister’s excuse for the ‘joke’ but it is nevertheless as clear – and as damaging.

‘We find it hard to believe, or beyond belief, that Deputy [Bernard] Flouquet did not recognise the racial undertones of the joke, as he had used the words “Barack Obama” and “golliwog” almost in the same breath.’

In short, presented with a hole of his own making, the minister kept on digging.

Only someone without defence would claim that there was no racist undertone in the comments or that a press conference he had called about the airport was ‘a private gathering of 12 people’. Yet by doing so, the issue of his sense of judgement is again raised.

In the circumstances, trying to hold on to office will be seen by many islanders as a further act of denial, of refusing to be accountable.

The sadness is that he is an able, hard-working man doing a good job, but making matters worse.

There is still time to resign as deputy chief minister and spare the States a damaging debate.

And there is a further consideration: where would it leave him – and the Assembly – if he survives but with nearly a majority believing he should have gone?