HAVING compared the speeches of the keynote speakers at both last year and this year’s National Leadership Prayer Breakfast, I have noticed a common trend. Reverend Dr Delford Davis, last year, while encouraging our leaders to be courageous, also called on them to be exemplary. This year, Reverend Everton Jackson indicated that if we are to restructure Jamaica then we need “insightful, visionary, creative and innovative leadership with strong moral authority”.

Though both presentations can be considered beneficial only as an intellectual exercise, it would be remiss of me not to recognise the undertones of both speeches, despite the idea not being clearly articulated. To best sum it up, I quote the words of a female protester from Westmoreland, whom when asked by TV Journalists why she was demonstrating, replied: “We want leadership!” In those three words she expressed what the church, a leadership-based institution, found difficult to say.

When I was quite younger, I had a conversation with a distant cousin who migrated to California, USA, at age 11 in the late 1960s. She gave a diagnosis to the real crisis that Jamaica has been facing since Independence when she said to me: “Change in Jamaica will occur when the leaders begin to do things for the people.” It took me a number of years to understand this, but it was Dr Davis’s speech that reminded of that conversation, when he said: “As political parties contend for State power, some might argue… that Jamaica has never won, and many have contemplated this question.”

Jamaica has passed through many political and economic phases, which required a certain level of leadership at different points: Whether it is Sam Sharpe or Nanny of the Maroons who repelled the egregious practice of chattel slavery, or within the era of Independence Norman Manley and Sir Alexander Bustamante who were at the forefront of the nationalist movement challenging the repressive system of colonialist imperialism. We have, since then, shifted into a new paradigm which requires a different kind of leadership that will begin to empower Jamaicans to identify opportunities for the betterment of their lives. But the question may be asked, what have we accomplished since 1962? What did we have to show for our over 50 years of Independence? What kind of leadership has emerged since then?

Sadly, Jamaica has found itself in a pothole, repetitively attempting to use the same methods of moving either the bus or the JEEP, but which fails miserably to produce any effective change.

Let us look at Jamaica’s political journey since gaining Independence, and let us see the legacy of leadership we have been left with since then. In 1992, when Percival James Patterson was elected leader of the People’s National Party and prime minister, the populace declared that it was ‘black man time’, without acknowledging that another Afro-Jamaican Hugh Shearer had been prime minister. Similarly, Portia Simpson Miller’s road to becoming prime minister was parallel to that of her predecessor; being elected in 2006 to lead the PNP and thus becoming prime minister of Jamaica, her ascension to leadership was dubbed to be ‘woman time’. Under the last Jamaica Labour Party Administration, Andrew Holness at age 39 became the youngest Prime Minister in 2011, ushering in ‘young people time’. The face of Jamaica’s leadership again needs to be changed, and this change must exceed our superficial assessment of political representation based on prejudices and preferences with respect to race, sex or age.

The truth is that Jamaica has not had authentic leadership. Instead, we have been locked into political mind games between parties. The average Jamaican citizens are like pawns on a chessboard. They are used to advance the political agenda of one side or the other, but eventually the majority become casualties or collateral damage. Let me put it in simpler terms: A politician’s main concern is how to acquire power and, having done so, how to manipulate this power to his or her advantage. In others words, it is he or she who determines who gets power, when they get it, how much they get, and even where and in what circumstances it can be used.

Leaders, on the other hand, are more concerned about providing the resources and opportunities for the empowerment of their constituents, irrespective of class, race, sex, age, wealth, or political inclinations. Leaders give an ear to the unheard and provide a platform for those who believe they are voiceless. Unlike power-obsessed politicians, leaders are more interested in serving the people while ensuring that they grow and are transformed emotionally, intellectually, financially, socially, etc through recognising and developing their potential.

What we failed to realise from a leader such as Marcus Mosiah Garvey is that we all have power within us, individually and collectively, and this power should never be surrendered to any one man or political group. It is for this reason that we should not be so docile when politicians abuse their powers and act irresponsibly.

Maybe the problem lies with the Jamaican populace who seem to have become so politically comatose that we have adapted to the idea of career politicians who have forgotten that they should be accountable to us — their employers.

I do not believe that a diagnosis of the country’s problems only identifies the God-complex and corruption from which our politicians suffer; a proper diagnosis of Jamaica’s problem will point the citizens who suffer from political amnesia (where acts of corruption, mismanagement, misappropriation of funds, cronyism, etc are only nine-day wonders) and selective passivity (we react to government decisions only when it affects our pocket or our political ideology). No matter what the problem with our country, it is apparent that if we do not find a cure then our nation will soon self-destruct.

On the eve of the French Revolution — which lasted for decades and created a transforming impact on governance across the world including Haiti which was then a French colony — philosopher Jean Jacque Rousseau coined a term that gave impetus to the revolution. The social contract, he said, was the agreement or consent of leaders with their constituents to administrate with integrity and in the interest of the social good. If Jamaica is to avoid anything similar that of France, or Haiti which continues to suffer from cyclical revolutions, then it is necessary that our politicians recall the social contract that they have with the Jamaican people. It is imperative that both the PNP and JLP return to the core party values on which they were founded; not the political rhetoric of a recent campaign manifesto.

Obama’s example

Despite the detraction of Barack Obama by his conservative counterparts, much needs to be said about his leadership. Having become the president of the United States in 2009, during the volatile global economic crisis — due mainly to the fiscal irresponsibility of major banks that led to the sub-prime meltdown — he has managed to reverse the fortunes of the US. Through his political leadership and economic programmes he has rescued the economy and boosted consumer confidence.

Obama’s foreign policy also speaks volumes of his leadership. Rather than resolving conflict immediately by war, the approach to engaging countries around the world has been that of diplomacy, creating space for conversation, as is the current case with Cuba. Where there is an impasse, sanctions are applied to those who do not wish to engage in bilateral and multilateral treaties, like Russia, North Korea and Venezuela. War for Obama is only a final resolution to extreme political situations such as the Islamic State, al-Qaeda and its now deceased leader Osama bin Laden. It is his approach to foreign policy, aiming for peaceful solutions through discussion, that earned his the title of Nobel Peace laureate.

Many may say that Obama is a utopian idealist (others say communist), but it is his world view that has been the backbone for the practical changes that he has accomplished so far, especially in fulfilling Millennium Development Goals. One would have thought that the US, which holds the torch for democracy, would make provisions for equitable society. However, through Obamacare, the president seeks to create universal health care for all citizens, similar to that provided by its northern neighbour, Canada, and its European ally, France.

Thus his handling or racial matters is no different from the manner of dealing with international relations, strategically creating the space for conversation which then leads to reform, and possibly revolution. Obama is indeed a transformational leader, one who has emerged in our time to create change through conversation.

What conversation have our leaders, nay politicians, undertaken in their management of Jamaica’s affairs, locally and internationally? And, are we even listening?

joscott86@gmail.com