TheJLP at 60
LONG perceived as a party with “one-man” rule, the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), which turned 60 years old last month, is putting on new clothes as a more democratic party, ruled by constitution.
Party leader, Edward Seaga, admits this in an interview for a Sunday Observer piece reflecting on the development of the JLP through high and low points in its eventful existence as one of the two parties that have shared electoral power since Jamaicans got the vote in 1944.
In the interview, Seaga also explained why the JLP loses elections at the end of periods he has described as marked by strong economic growth and prosperity for Jamaicans.
Seaga, a former prime minister — from 1980-89 — said as the party regrouped for the future, the defining characteristic would be greater participation of its membership in the decision-making process.
The move would usher in a greater period of democracy in the party which has been dogged by an image of one-man leadership, starting with its founder, Sir Alexander Bustamante, and continuing with Seaga labelled — unkindly, supporters would say — as the “one don”.
“In the ’90s, we moved very decisively from the earlier leadership that the JLP had been accustomed to where the leader made the crucial decisions, to one in which the party is now run by the collective efforts of its officers,” the opposition leader told the Sunday Observer.
“The leader still has the special role as leader and has a decisive position in decision-making, but this after consultation with the officers of the party and constituted committees. The party is now fully constitutional in its operation. We go by the constitution in everything that we do.”
The ’90s to which Seaga referred saw two major crises in the JLP. In the first, now called the Gang of Five Affair, five senior members of the leadership ranks of the party were expelled for challenging Seaga’s “autocratic” leadership style.
At the height of the affair, Pearnel Charles, Edmund Bartlett, Karl Samuda, Douglas Vaz and the late Errol Anderson were told by Seaga to “light a candle, sing a sankey and find your way back home”, a phrase which became part of the political lexicon.
The second debacle, one of the worst crises in the party’s recent history and dubbed the Western Eleven, was triggered by a group of party stalwarts from western Jamaica who again questioned the party leader’s style.
The action by the western dissidents, which included high-profile people like Dr Horace Chang, Brascoe Lee, Godfrey Dyer and Russell Hammond, led to the decision of Bruce Golding, Seaga’s heir apparent, to quit the party and form the National Democratic Movement (NDM).
Golding, armed with a list of issues in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), last year dropped the dying NDM and is now back in the JLP, awaiting an appointment for leadership when Seaga goes, possibly before the next general election.
Asked to comment on Seaga’s declaration of more democracy in the party, D K Duncan, the former People’s National Party (PNP) minister of mobilisation in the 1970s, said he heard that there had been some democratisation taking place in the JLP “at the top”.
But Duncan added: “There are no indications that this democratisation of the JLP is deep-rooted. They need to use Bruce Golding’s Memorandum of Understanding as the ‘litmus test’ to determine how successful this democratisation process really is. To improve democratisation within the party’s Standing Committee is not a sign of any fundamental change in the party.”
Trevor Munroe, PNP senator and former leader of the now defunct Marxist-Leninist Workers Party of Jamaica (WPJ), disagrees with Duncan’s assessment of the JLP’s current efforts at democracy. Improvement of democracy “at the top” of a party that had a tradition of ‘leader centrism’, said Munroe, was “an important sign” of progress.
“There is a cultural change taking place throughout the country that is being reflected in the JLP’s move toward more collectivity in its leadership. We saw the start of this when Mike Henry led the party into the 1998 local government elections despite Seaga’s objection,” Munroe argued.
“There is now a significant section of the young intelligentsia that are being attracted to the JLP. If the party can now present itself as the party of change while the PNP bogs itself down in tribalism, corruption and incompetence, the JLP can be assured of forming the next government,” he added.
“Of course,” Munroe went on, “the matter of internal party stability is still a crucial factor, because Jamaicans will not want to entrust their government to a squabbling, divided party.”
In the interview, Seaga spent much time itemising the achievements of JLP administrations during the 1960s and 1980s, saying the country during those times had seen significant growth.
“In all of this (during the ’60s) Jamaica established a reputation as a country that was doing things… growing rapidly. Our country’s performance was referred to as “the Jamaican miracle” — the fastest growing country in the developing world. The country grew by 12 per cent in 1971 but was averaging six per cent per annum over the entire period,” Seaga said.
Jamaicans had a stronger awareness of their own national identity, and their pride was based, to a large extent, on how their country was doing and on how people felt the country was developing, Seaga added.
Asked why, in that context, did the party lose the 1972 elections, 37 seats to 16, to the PNP, the JLP leader attributed it to “the very strong campaign that Michael Manley ran”.
But Duncan described Seaga’s assessment of the JLP loss as “too simplistic”.
“Most economists describe the period of the ’60s as one of ‘growth without development’,” said Duncan. “Much of the inflow of capital was from the bauxite companies and although the growth figures are correct, the people never felt the benefits.
“The ’60s and early ’70s were times of ferment in the world — the nationalist movements in Africa, the civil rights movement in the USA and locally we were being influenced by all these developments. The ‘Rodney Riots’ of 1968 were a clear indication of the growing discontent in the country. Hugh Shearer’s banning of Walter Rodney from entering the country and his intemperate statements against the university intelligentsia drove a wedge between the JLP and the intelligentsia, as well as large sections of the middle-class.”
Duncan continued: “Added to this was Michael Manley’s promotion in the party; with his background in the trade union movement, university education and strong charisma, he appealed to a wide cross-section of Jamaicans. The PNP Slogan of ‘Better Must Come’ struck to the core of the feelings of most Jamaicans.”
Munroe differed from both Seaga and Duncan: “The Jamaican character has two conflicting sides, and it is in each of us and the population as a whole — one side wants change and is prone to taking risks but the other side wants stability and wants to be assured of a secure place in the social order. Each of these sides have both positive and negative attributes.
“Which side predominates depends on the particular historical juncture in which we find ourselves. It so happens that the two main political parties have identified themselves, in the main, with one of these conflicting sides.
“The JLP best reflects that side of Jamaicans that wants stability and a secure status quo, while the PNP has historically represented that side which is open to change and the risks involved,” said Munroe.
“From the Bustamante/Norman Manley era to the Michael Manley/Seaga and now the Patterson/Seaga periods we are seeing the same dynamic at work — two sides of the Jamaican character contending for dominance,” Munroe argued.
Economist Dr Omri Evans also had a different explanation for the changes from a JLP to a PNP-led government over the decades. “It is clear to me that the JLP is the party of wealth creation and the PNP is the party of wealth redistribution,” Evans said. “Rather than waiting for the wealth-creation policies of the JLP to benefit all aspects of social life, the Jamaican people seem always to opt for changing the government so that the PNP will redistribute the wealth.
“Unfortunately, what has been happening is that the wealth is redistributed without any being created, so the country ends up broke and having to go back to the JLP to create more wealth,” Evans remarked.