- File
Charles... I stood up, I fought, I may not have won, but I stood up and survived to be here today.
Popular trade union leader and politician with strong grass roots appeal, Pearnel Charles, is one of at least three contenders within the Jamaica Labour Party vying to replace Edward Seaga as party leader. In an interview with Earl Moxam, he sets out his vision for Jamaica and reflects on some of his past conflicts.
EM: Why are you seeking the leadership of the JLP?
PC: Over the years I have prepared myself; as a trade unionist of many years and in Parliament. In the Government and Cabinet I have learnt and I've prepared; and I know I'm capable of putting together the right team of technicians, consultants, and professionals to move this country forward.
EM: The Jamaica Labour Party is 61 years old; it has had its successes, but it has gone through a very lean spell, being in opposition for the last 16 years. What are some of the weaknesses that have contributed to that and how do you plan to fix those weaknesses?
PC: I think that one of the primary weaknesses of the Labour Party over the past few years has been our inability to communicate to the people, what, in our opinion, is right for them. We have had the best period of economic growth, stability in terms of our currency; the best period in increased investment and employment; yet we have not been able to transfer to the grass roots, the bottom of the economy, much of the wealth that has been created. And so when the period of choice comes they are inspired by hope of a better day; better than the one that is now with them. That has been a major problem for the JLP.
EM: In addition to that though, there have been the internal problems. You yourself have been badly bruised in the process. How is that going to be healed?
PC: Earl, if one concentrates on personal hurt, you will lose national focus. I consider the hurt that you refer to, whether under the present Government, past governments, or inside the Jamaica Labour Party as challenges along the way, searching for this period of development which could start anytime. I have been hurt, yes; battered and bruised; but so have been many other leaders: Nelson Mandela, Gandhi. Many of the people who genuinely represent the working class have always had to walk the rough, tough road and they've walked it without malice. And I am proud to say that I don't concentrate on the past hurt and personalise feelings of wickedness. I look, using today, to search for a brighter tomorrow.
EM: Except though, that your own personal popularity with the Jamaican public and delegates within the party, perhaps, has suffered because of their perception of a certain level of weakness on your part in how you have responded to some of this hurt. So, for example, the incident at the annual conference of the JLP in 1991 when you were beaten up and how you responded to it in the conference, seeking to bring closure to the matter. Perhaps that has affected how some in the party view you.
PC: I don't accept that the war in the party and my response to that has caused people to turn away from me. I couldn't have fought any harder Mr. Seaga, Mr. Golding, Mr. Peralto and many of the other stalwarts of the Labour Party who did not share my vision or my view, championing and challenging for a cause that I thought was right. But in speaking to a number of delegates, I've reminded them that I stood up, I fought, I may not have won, but I stood up and survived to be here today and I've called on them to move forward with me.
EM: Just remind me, what was it that you were calling for back then?
PC: When we lost the election in 1989 Jamaica was growing at a very fast pace; the economy was growing, employment was high, the dollar was stable, people were feeling more secure and safer. So I wondered what could have caused the people of Jamaica to turn against that, and I questioned whether our approach to the social development of the country might have been responsible. I believe that, in questioning why we were suffering defeats, some of my colleagues believed that I was questioning their role and wanted to put them on trial and this caused a great problem for me and for the party.
EM: If I recall correctly, shortly after that election defeat in 1989, when the PNP went into office and began to expound a more moderate philosophy than it had done in the recent past, you declared that henceforth you would be positioning yourself to the left of the PNP, which might have caught some of your colleagues in the JLP off-guard. Was that partially responsible for the trouble you got into with some in the party?
PC: Yes. I think that my approach to a social revolution was ahead of some of my colleagues who were more in tune with the monetary policies of the day. The PNP's revolutionary approach to development (in the 1970s) may have been a little too far left for me, but I am still, as I was then, feeling the necessity for change had to happen faster than the normal evolution. So I was referred to as a social reformer. I still feel that some of the things that we have to do in Jamaica today will not be pleasant to some people who are wealthy and happy with the status quo, but if we don't do it they will wake up one day and find out that they are threatened by those who are not able to participate in the development of the country.
EM: What is your primary concern in respect of the transformation of the Jamaican society?
PC: I have spent many years searching for the solution to poverty, crime, under-development of my people here in Jamaica and all over the world. Now I can stand before Jamaica and the world and declare that I have the solution. That solution is born out of my own development. When my parents produced seven of us they announced that we should all get an education; we should all go to high school. That was their primary objective for us, to get an education. We got there and two or three of us went on to university. We discovered that, as a result of that, we were all able to get a job move out of the unemployment jail. I have seven children and I subjected them to the same analysis and I moved them from high school to university. Four of them are now doctors, one is an attorney, one is a financier on the Chicago Stock Exchange and one is graduating to go into law. And they will say the same things to their children; my grand-children.
If I use that same formula for the whole country then we will have a nation that is educated, sufficiently to have skills, with the people being able to take care of themselves. I would subject this nation to pay for education. Compulsory attendance would be my number one announcement; those who cannot find food and clothes, the state must find it. The nation would first be educated.
EM: Are you advocating that a certain percentage of the Budget should go towards education?
PC: That is correct. For example if 20 per cent of the Budget is what is needed to educate the people of Jamaica and to have them properly trained and have a skill then were going to put it there. I believe that if people were educated they would know how to protect themselves, healthwise; we'd probably be able to cut hospital bills by a third. Even driving on the street having well-educated people driving on the streets and being able to reason saves lives. I could look at all areas of our daily lives and identify savings that would be realised just because the nation can reason and make decisions in a way that would save us half of the problems were having.
If you go into the inner-city communities where people are unable to just relate to each other just because they are unable to read and write and reasonably transmit to each other their feelings without resort to the knife and the gun, we'd be so much better off as a country. It's not new what I'm saying. Japan has no major natural resource; in Singapore the only major resource is the people. We, on the other hand, have natural resources in abundance and yet we have 20 per cent of our population unemployed; another 20 per cent under-employed and we have war everywhere among people who are unable to reason.
EM: How would you change the quality and style of the leadership of the JLP?
PC: I believe that nobody would be upset if I said that the leadership of Bustamante and Hugh Shearer brought to Jamaica growth, unprecedented development and peace. I would look at the growth and development of Jamaica under these two labour leaders and move in that direction. Over the past 16 years there have literally been wars between capital and labour. Capital has been reducing ownership in certain industries and putting workers at risk and I believe that a trade union leader would be responsive to capital and labour in a way that the working relationship, compensation, pension, social security, the threat of globalisation all of these would be seen as a challenge to a labour leader heading the political arm of the country.
EM: Some might ask why not just fall in line and support the aspirations of a Bruce Golding who seems to have the support of Jamaicans inside and outside of the Labour Party. What's wrong with supporting the emergence of a Bruce Golding emerging as leader of the party?
PC: I'm not saying there's anything wrong with Bruce Golding supporting me, because I definitely would find Bruce Golding and others, welcome lieutenants in the development that I'm proceeding with.
EM: By the same token, what about you being a lieutenant for Golding?
PC: I would have no hesitation in that working relationship if the objectives are clear; if the end result is that we are going to have a nation that is united, a nation that is disciplined that seeks to move forward with all of these qualities.
EM: You're not clear on his objectives?
PC: A number of objectives were stated by him under the banner of the NDM. I don't think he has stated yet what his JLP objectives are, but where his objectives coincide with mine we certainly could work together.
EM: Earlier on we spoke of the difficulties you went through during the so called Gang of Five affair. Bruce Golding was chairman of the party then, so is there any lingering hurt or animosity from that episode?
PC: I have no hesitation in telling you that I carry no grudge for anybody. Those hard times passed with the day. There are a number of people who ask me how could I now deal with my brother-in-law (Golding), Mr. Seaga, Mr. Shaw, and others who were party to these hard times. So was Michael Manley; so was the PNP, which put me in prison for more than a year. I treat it all as yesterday. I look at the beautiful sunshine today and allow God to guide me into tomorrow. I'm very sorry for some who have hurt me, because I sometimes jokingly say to my colleagues from time to time that you should not touch the Lord's anointed! I probably am going to want to discuss with Mr. Seaga, just for the record and for my next book, some of the tough times that I believe were unnecessary and that have set back the JLP; set him back; set me back and have set back the country.
EM: Do you think you have the respect of Edward Seaga today?
PC: Surprisingly, he wrote a very short letter in which he made some very startling revelations. When I accepted from my colleagues that I would look at the possibility of leading the Opposition and the party, I went to see Mr. Seaga and paid him the courtesy of advising him of what had happened. He said to me, I wish you well. The newspapers interpreted that to say, Seaga backs Charles, which forced Mr. Seaga to put out a statement. In that statement he made two reversals which were very revealing. One: I wish them all well. Two: They're all very capable men. The press did not pick that up; they picked up what was not in the statement! Now, for Mr. Seaga to wish me well, I believe is an achievement after a period of hostility between the two of us over a long period. And for him to finally admit that I'm a capable leader is also an achievement; and I accept it.
