Golding
Bruce Golding, Chairman of the Jamaica Labour Party and the presumed front-runner to succeed Party Leader Edward Seaga in November, even before he formally announces his candidacy, is oozing confidence in his chances of success. In this interview with Earl Moxam, Mr. Golding speaks of his leadership aspirations, his relationship with two other aspirants and his vision for Jamaica, among other issues.
EM: Mr. Golding, regarding the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party, have you yet decided whether you will be contesting?
BG: I haven't announced a decision yet. I've been involved in consultations with Members of Parliament and caretakers and other critical functionaries within the party structure right across the island. This will continue, certainly into next week; after that I should be in a position to make a clear announcement.
EM: Are you encouraged by the responses you've been receiving?
BG: I'm overwhelmed!
EM: If you were to start counting heads as far as possible delegate support is concerned, what would it be looking like?
BG: No. I wouldn't do that at this stage, but I'm encouraged. I think there's a genuine desire within the party to pursue new frontiers. I think the delegates are looking for more than just a change of leadership; there's a whole set of creative forces that are about to assert themselves within the party. It's the kind of things that parties go through whenever there's about to be a change of leadership; I saw it in the JLP in 1974 when Mr. Seaga became the Leader; I saw it in the PNP in 1992 under Mr. Patterson, and I think the same thing is happening in the party (JLP) now. There's a lot of excitement, a lot of electricity within the party. The challenge, but it is a pleasant challenge, is how to harness all of that energy to manage the process; to ensure that, come November, the party is re-energised and refocused. In the management of that process, what is going to be critical is that the party must come out of November with a strength of unity, the likes of which we have not seen for a long time.
EM: You speak of a new moment in the party when people are looking beyond the need just for a change of leadership. Perhaps they want somebody to articulate a particular change of vision for the party and for the country. Can you encapsulate what is it that a Golding leadership of the JLP would bring?
BG: Unity. They want to see a strong, united party. We've had, over a long time, and more so in recent times, perceptions of bickering and bitterness and in-fighting. That is something that has to be dispensed with and I think that if we are responsible we can use this conference to virtually exorcise that from the party. Secondly, I think the delegates want to see a strong leadership team. Mr. Seaga is a strong leader, but perhaps because his light shone so brightly it was difficult for other lights to shine around him. And I think the delegates are looking for a strong leader, yes, but a leader that is not so strong that he overpowers those around him. I think they want to see a Jamaica Labour Party team that will win government and will be able to manage the affairs of government. I think they're looking for a team that is cohesive; that is harmonised and that demonstrates the capability to manage the affairs of the country.
In that regard I think we have enormous talent within the party; both among persons, like myself, who have been around for a long time and among some of the new recruits who have come on-board in recent times. I think there's enormous talent that can be welded into an effective leadership team, not just winning the election but for managing the affairs of the country. In that respect, I don't think that we have utilised the skills that we have as effectively as we could have. I see, even amongst what we call the old guard, talents that we have not utilised; and one of the things that I want to do is ensure that everybody's skills are brought to bear in terms of how the party impacts.
You know, in a cricket team there are some of us who are good bowlers; we take wickets, but we can't bat, and there are some of us who make runs but we can't take wickets. Well, that's how you build a cricket team; you have to balance your opening batsmen and your middle-order batsmen and your pace bowlers and your spin bowlers; and the task of doing that essentially rests with the team captain.
EM: You speak of the so-called old guard. To the extent that there seems to be, on their part, a suspicion of you, some describe it as a 'Stop-Golding movement', have you identified why there's this desire to stop your advance as an individual?
BG: Well, there are a number of things that may contribute to that. I'm restless for change. I'm 56 years old now, but I've always sought to ensure that age does not slow down my own mind and my hunger to see things change, because I don't believe that the purpose of our journey through life is simply to keep things as we found them.
Perhaps because I'm not only receptive to change ideas not all of which I agree with but I'm open to discussing them and perhaps because I articulate critical initiatives for change myself. There's a whole new cadre of people within the party who also want to see change, not only within the party but within the whole structure of government and how government relates to the people.
There's been a sort of intellectual coalescing around that. That leads to insecurities because there are persons who are less adventurous; who figure that if it ain't completely broke then don't fix it, and I think some of them may feel threatened, but in my view, unnecessarily so, by a group of people who they think want to upend everything. But there is another important factor that has led to these insecurities. Part of the problem within the Labour Party has to do with the fact that we've been out of power for so long. There's an element within the party who have still not achieved for ourselves, the party and the country, what we set out to achieve; we don't think we've fulfilled our mission. There are persons in the party now who are approaching 70; who, for example, have never been in Cabinet; and you know the structure of our politics is that you really don't get a chance to make a real difference until you occupy a Cabinet position.
At the same time there has been, over this period that we've been in Opposition, another cadre of persons who figure that we have been around for some time and how long must we be apprentices. So you have this sort of pressure building up; of persons who feel that the old guard is not making space for them, and the old guard saying I can't make space because I still have work to finish. I think that has created some amount of tension. It's both a generational tension as well as an intellectual tension. My own view is that the party can weld both of those forces together. I think there's tremendous experience that we can't do without. There are some of us who have been there; we know the pitfalls and part of the challenge for the leader that emerges in November is how do you make space without at the same time retrenching large elements within the party, because that would be suicidal. Its a challenge that I believe can be managed.
EM: The only declared candidate, up to this point, is your brother-in-law, Pearnel Charles. How do you face the prospect of going up against Pearnel?
BG: I have tremendous respect for Pearnel. Pearnel was my friend before I even married his sister and we have remained friends throughout. We're going to remain friends through to November and after November were still going to be friends. If I'm elected the Leader of the Party in November I'll need Pearnel. Pearnel has strengths that I don't have and I believe that I have strengths that he doesn't have.
EM: Have you made overtures to him to say, let's combine these strengths right now rather than going into a contest to determine who is the bigger boss?
BG: Well, Pearnel and I have had some general discussions, not in terms of that, but in terms of the importance of maintaining unity; the importance of managing the process through to November; and more importantly, what the two of us will do after November, regardless of what the outcome of the election is. I'm very sceptical of suggestions that we don't want a contest.
There's a phrase that is being used: Let's settle this, not in the ballroom but in the boardroom. I don't subscribe to that. I believe that the business of choosing the Leader of the Party is not something for some privileged few of us to sit and negotiate behind closed doors. I believe that decision belongs to the delegates of the party, all 4,600 of them. They must make that decision. Secondly, the new Leader must have a mandate, the legitimacy of which cannot be challenged. That mandate can be consolidated by the delegates going to the polling booth and voting. Thirdly, I think that an election, properly conducted, and a campaign leading up to that election that is responsibly managed, can energise the party, and really bring out of people a whole new excitement.
EM: Let me take you back in time to 1990. You then as Party Chairman, as you are again, wrote on behalf of the party on October 8, 1990: 'Dear Mr. Charles, I'm to advise that the Standing Committee has taken a decision that you will no longer be considered a candidate to contest the election on behalf of the party.' How difficult was it for you to write that letter, and how much of that episode in the party's history is still hanging over the two of you?
BG: To the extent that it was a Standing Committee decision and I was simply conveying that decision as Chairman, for which, of course, I had a collective responsibility, it wasn't difficult. To the extent that it was a letter that I had to write to someone with whom I had a close relationship, that was difficult. During all my years in the party I have subordinated my own personal relationships to my official responsibilities. The truth of the matter is that, with hindsight and perhaps one could say you shouldn't have needed hindsight because some elements of that could have been seen at that time I don't think that we handled that situation very well.
EM: Speaking here of the Gang of Five issue.
BG: The whole Gang of Five issue, I think, was mishandled, and I was part of that process. I think it had to do less with the allegations that were made, and I think it was one of the many instances of rumblings in the corridors of power within the party.
EM: Did Mr. Seaga himself go too far?
BG: I think we all went too far! Myself and Mr. Seaga included.
EM: Would you say then that the verdict of the people, in terms of the results at the polls, have been influenced by that particular issue?
BG: I think that that helped to create in the minds of people a perception that all was not well in the party's state of Denmark. And I don't think that we have learnt as much as we should have from those experiences because, too often since then, we have either repeated those errors or we have come fairly close to it. There was a situation involving Mr. Mike Henry in which I wasn't myself involved because I was out of the party at that time, but that too seemed to have reflected a similar application of party authority. I think one of the things that we have to do, now that we are in the process of transition is to look very closely at some of those experiences and to ensure two things. One is that we put (mechanisms) in place to ensure that we don't repeat some of those errors, and secondly, that we recognise the importance of creating the kind of relationships that will make unlikely and unnecessary the development of situations like those.
EM: There is the suggestion that there might be a splintering of what had appeared a solid coalition of senior party members supporting Pearnel Charles in a one-on-one contest with you, with Audley Shaw possibly mounting his own challenge. How do you respond to an Audley Shaw challenge?
BG: I don't want to respond until there is a clearer picture as to what is likely to emerge.
EM: Assess the man, Audley Shaw.
BG: Audley is a credible contender. I think Audley has done tremendously in his portfolio. I think he has been one of the very assertive flag bearers for the party. He works hard and therefore I don't discount the weight of his own candidacy if he decides to run. But as I indicated before, in a cricket team you need good batsmen and good bowlers and good wicketkeepers and I'm sure Audley will fit nicely into one of those slots.
