Robert Buddan, Contributor
THE JAMAICA Labour Party is going through another episode of turmoil. This follows major dissensions from the 'Gang of Five', the 'Western Eleven', the National Democratic Movement, and now the battle between reformists and traditionalists.
It is now 14 years of these fits of political epilepsy for which the party has not found a cure. The leading players then are still trapped in this ever blowing storm. I agree with Bruce Golding and Karl Samuda that the duly elected deputy leaders and members of the party secretariat should be given their rightful place in the party's decision-making structure; and that the party settles its differences by showing civility, respect, decency and decorum among its leaders.
There is something fundamentally wrong when the very democratic structures and procedures of the party are not allowed to work. Something is wrong when the party leader insults a deputy leader with claims that tainted money financed his campaign; when a newly-elected chairman is muscled out of the important role of managing candidate selection; when a chairman and general secretary have to fight for inclusion of new party leaders; and when newspapers report that senior members of the party are shouting abuse at each other. Something is clearly amiss when these things take place at meetings called for dispute settlement.
ONE PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT
Norman Manley had a political formula for Jamaica. His idea was of, 'two parties one progressive movement'. This was his theme at the annual conference of the PNP in 1945. Manley conceived of the JLP and PNP, not as two movements fighting each other, but as a single nationalist, progressive movement for Jamaica with competing programmes. This was to be a movement of different classes to represent the cause of all the small and down-trodden people and the labour movement.
Norman Manley said that the JLP was Bustamante's greatest contribution to Jamaican democracy. Despite the real differences of personality, ideologies and methods, the parties were able to compete on the basis of 'a great cousinship' between Bustamante and Manley and later, a labour partnership between Hugh Shearer and Michael Manley. But events have shown that constant turmoil in the JLP and its failure to behave like a democratic organisation have undermined the formula of 'two parties one progressive movement'.
Bruce Golding has presented his agenda for democratic reforms based on:
Devolution of authority from the party centre to the party grass roots
Involvement of the party structures in shaping policy decisions
Accountability to performance standards in the party
Inclusion of the broader party membership in creating the party's vision for the country.
These are proper demands. They provide the basis for the party's broader membership to debate and decide on issues that can bring the JLP back into a progressive movement based on permanent bipartisanship that would discuss support for a social partnership; support for regional institutions; support for constitutional reform and support for further local government reforms. These are all issues that affect labour relations, regional co-operation, human rights, human development, and national and local governance.
The JLP needs to be a part of developments that are already in progress rather than being left out. Take Local Government reform. The party has benefited from these reforms and as the majority party of Local Government it is now in a good position to participate and administer further reforms. The boycott of Local Government elections in 1998 did not help the party. Another example is the bipartisan work on electoral reform. Electoral reform has made great gains because the JLP has been involved. In similar fashion, it needs to engage in discussions of the social partnership and regional institution building to ensure that its vision is represented. The alternative is to stand aloof, criticize and be left out by political grandstanding and obstinacy.
INTERNAL PROBLEMS
Unfortunately, the JLP consumes itself in infighting. In these fights Mr. Golding is giving more than he is getting. He has already conceded the possibility of a different constitutional model for Jamaica, term limits/leadership tenure, fitness to lead, and now chairmanship of the candidate selection committee. On this last dispute, Mr. Golding conceded chairmanship to Mr. Seaga, 'for the good of the party', although most see Mr. Seaga's manoeuvre as a move to weaken Golding and the reformists.
These concessions undermine Mr. Golding's own project to devolve authority from the centre. If the chairman and general secretary of the party do not have control over their domains then Mr. Golding and Mr. Samuda cannot ensure that there will be accountability for performance in the party. They will not be able to see to it that the JLP membership is involved in making policy decisions and creating a vision for the country. Mr. Golding had already agreed on parliamentary reforms but conceded a base in parliament for himself.
Golding is giving up the very powers he needs to make the party better. How can this be for the good of the party?
Furthermore, if Mr. Golding and Mr. Samuda do not stamp their authority on the party, they will not be able to ensure that there is civility among party leaders and mutual respect between reformers and traditionalists. Mr. Golding has asked the reformers to respect the traditionalists and Mr. Seaga has accused the younger set of discourteous behaviour and disrespectful conduct. The truth is that the party has a long history of public name calling from all sides. Mr. Golding himself has avoided discourtesy under very emotional circumstances and must take credit for this.
Mr. Samuda might be forgiven for the frustration that led him to accuse his colleagues of being yes-men, wimps and lackeys. The greatest disrespect has been shown by Mr. Seaga. Public humiliation of dissenters has been his trade-mark. Karl Samuda's own anguish in 2000 caused him to chastise Mr. Seaga's insulting attitude and to restate his vision for a more democratic JLP: "Naturally, I will not attempt to speak for my colleagues who have been insulted and vilified by Mr. Seaga, but I will never yield to unwarranted threats that are born of distortions and mistruths. I will forever challenge uncompromisingly the notion that wisdom and intellectual aptitude is the private preserve of the few and that the formula for good governance is possessed by a select group. The democratic process demands broad-based involvement and I will forever pursue this as my primary objective."
DEMOCRATIC PARTY MANAGEMENT
One can contrast our other parties on internal democracy. At the time of Portia Simpson's challenge to P.J. Patterson for leadership of the PNP, a Sunday Gleaner editorial wrote that the contest had been 'remarkably friendly', and that "As far as we are able to judge, Mr. Patterson has handled the internal politics of the PNP with laudable democratic even-handedness." The same editorial went on to say that the NDM (led by Bruce Golding himself) had conducted elections for top officers of the party, "with no publicly visible trace of political underhandedness or intrigue." It has been possible for the PNP and NDM to be civil and to accept the democratic method. For the JLP, it has been far different.
The failure to accept democracy has crippled the party. At the start of the Gang of Five fallout in 1990, Carl Stone wrote: "The choice facing Eddie Seaga at Sunday's JLP Conference is to decide whether he is a force for progressive democratic political change or whether he will be fighting to preserve outdated and moribund styles of political management." After 14 years, Mr. Seaga is still fighting to preserve the old way and the style many in his own party have called dictatorial.
As long ago as 1998, the JLP established a conflict resolution commission to deal with internal party disputes. This has obviously not been successful.
The JLP has lost the opportunity to remain a leading part of the progressive movement. It is for the reformers to give it the place Norman Manley wished it to have. But Mr. Golding must be careful that his concessions for the good of the party are not for the bad of the country.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. E-mail: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm
