Ian Boyne

Bruce Golding demonstrated exemplary leadership and focus on Sunday, when he resisted the seduction to play to the gallery, to engage in histrionics and rabble-rousing in the face of the "granny" of all political conferences.

Faced with the cult-like euphoria naturally unleashed in that environment at the National Arena, Jamaica Labour Party Leader Bruce Golding could have raised the ante against the Prime Minister and the PNP and could have exploited the tensions and perception of disunity among his political opponents. He could have talked scandals and more scandals, revisited Trafigura and could have screamed about economic mismanagement. He could have ranted about crime and a host of 'evils'.

Golden Opportunity

Golding did no such thing. In the eyes of those who can only see raw politics, Golding missed a golden opportunity, with the massive crowd before him and the glare of the television camera lights, to grandstand and "tek it to the PNP dem". He refused to "mash dung" the PNP, but instead urged Labourites "to be respectful to the comrades, because when it is all over we have to live together and work together if we are to achieve a better life".

There was no arrogance in suggesting that a new JLP government could work miracles; instead the party leader said unequivocally that "I am no Messiah. I can work no miracles." He referred, uncharacteristically, in a pre-election period, to "the difficult journey that we must undertake" (words usually reserved for after-victory speeches), and told the people plainly that he could not carry them on his back out of the wilderness.

Tellingly, Mr. Golding told the faithful that "our mission is to build a country - not just win an election." He was not over: "And when we shall have won that election we will need the support of those who don't vote for us". If you are cynical and can never trust Golding, you can say he was just saying the right words. But, that is more than what you can say for some politicians!

Articulating Ideas

Whichever way you want to cut it, it has to be admitted that Bruce Golding delivered a most statesmanlike, dignified, measured, highly impressive and stimulating presentation to his 63rd annual party conference. It was, therefore, very disappointing to read that shallow and asinine Gleaner editorial of Tuesday, November 21, titled 'Put Specifics in the Vision'. First, Mr. Golding made it clear that he would soon put out a manifesto where the specific plans and programmes would be detailed -as expected. To expect that in a party address is foolish in the extreme.

And then the editorial writer delivered this piece of myopia: "We suggest to Mr. Golding that he take care in articulating ideas, mindful in becoming bogged down in abstractions." What abstractions? The man gave some very specific, concrete proposals for redistributing political power and, for strengthening the voice of the Jamaican people. The proposals could not be clearer and simpler.

It must be discouraging for political leaders to try to raise the bar of public discourse and to focus on ideas rather than polemics and then to faced with such trite comments in not just a column but an editorial. But, Golding must take heart: The anti-intellectual tradition in the Jamaican media dies hard.

Anyone acquainted with development studies and economics

would know that that the whole area of institutions is now seen as the critical factor in development. All the Bretton Woods organisations are emphasising the importance of institutions in accelerating economic growth. The studies are conclusive that even those emerging c economies which have attracted considerable aid, private capital and foreign direct investment have not maximised their economic growth because they did not have the strong institutions.

If people are alienated from the system and if they are marginalised, they will not maximise their potential. So whatever is done to redistribute power, improve governance and to make government more accountable has a potentially major impact on economic growth. So when The Gleaner editorial says, "the Jamaican people at this time are largely focused on hard deliverables - the bread-and-butter issues that translate into improved quality to their lives", it is merely demonstrating a lack of sophistication.

The editorial warns Golding to be careful of a "JLP Government (sic) becoming distracted by a time-consuming effort of reform." Let us renew the debate on the Golding constitutional agenda, yes, but let us do so in an informed way. I have sat down in the past with PNP Vice-President Peter Phillips and I know he has some serious and penetrating questions to put to Golding about his separation of powers proposals. Eddie Seaga himself, in private discussions with me in the past, has also put up a searing and well-considered critique of Golding's position.

I want to see a serious, rational, non-glandular discussion on Golding's constitutional reform agenda. He has raised the bar and has restarted the dialogue. Let us make some useful interventions rather than trivialising the issue.

What was particularly striking about Golding's first-rate and memorable presentation last Sunday was that here was a man fully convinced he was going to become the next Prime Minister, and yet he was publicly committing himself to give away powers traditionally vested in that office. In other words, if he should become Prime Minister and follow his principles he would have less power than every preceding Prime Minister of this country. And he would consciously and deliberately put himself under greater scrutiny of the Opposition and give them greater mechanisms to check his own power and to embarrass his own Government.

This point struck me forcefully before he himself drew attention to it in the speech. No wonder people in his own party are lukewarm and even hostile to his constitutional reform agenda: It is in the normal interest of politicians to hold on and to increase their power, not reduce it.

Golding is basically saying, "hey, even if we don't have separation of powers, there are things we can do to make even the present Westminster system more effective for the people and a greater brake against corruption and Governmental abuse". Some of his major proposals are for reforming the very Westminster system. Simple but important things like giving the Opposition the right to make statements to the Parliament, rather than restricting that to the Government side.

Like having an Opposition member chair sessional and special select committees. Redesigning the Standing Orders to expand the role of the Opposition in the Parliament seems an eminently reasonable thing. It would have to be shown that this redistribution of power would not serve the public interest. (Of course, we know there are those who hold that "the people elected the Government, not the Opposition, therefore, Government must rule." But they never consider the consequences of this kind of thinking).

Golding is not your typical politician. Golding is an idealist. He strikes me as someone who is a principle-centred leader, a man driven by ideas and principles rather than pure utilitarianism. He has a certain vision of what he wants to achieve in politics and he is driven by that. In fact, he is not unlike Portia Simpson Miller in that regard. We now have two ideologically-driven political leaders.

Bruce Golding and Portia Simpson Miller are not mere tacticians or journey man and journey woman. They have a passion to see certain ideals fulfilled or to contribute to a process toward their fulfilment. I have sat in the Prime Minister's office with tears welling up in my eyes as she spoke feelingly about the poor. This was without an audience, outside of a formal interview; just both of us together with her pouring out her heart to me. No one can make me question her absolute commitment to the working class and the downtrodden.

I can still feel the passionate commitment that Golding exuded in 1995 as we chatted alone about his reasons for leaving the JLP and why, despite his being the heir apparent, he felt he had to walk away from the JLP, simply because of his ideals. I do not see Golding as a mere opportunist, a fluke or someone not deeply committed to changing this political culture.

He did what few have the courage to do: To leave a party where he had every opportunity to be a part of the business-as-usual team. He left and took his gamble with history in pursuit of his ideals and principles. He did not leave because he was 'dissed', hurt or passed over for a promotion. He did not leave because of any power struggle, for he was then the apple of Eddie Seaga's eyes. He left because of principle - because of his idealism.

And he proved on Sunday that he is committed to those same principles for which he left the JLP in 1995. He has had the courage and strength of his convictions. Which is more than we can say for some politicians.

The vision he outlined in the earlier part of his speech is gripping: For developing a nation committed to God, "where people from different social and economic strata can share the same core values"; a nation where people love one another despite differences; nation where Governments sees itself as the servant of the people, not its master; a nation where human rights are enshrined and protected in everyday life. This is the level of discourse I like to see. This is the kind of rigor we must have in the public square. We must not spoil it with rabble-rousing or silly comments in the media. We must praise our politicians -from whichever party -when they raise their level of public discourse, as Bruce Golding has so refreshingly done. Golding was wise not to take on the Government on the economy, resisting the temptation to talk nonsense about the Government's wrecking the economy. I don't support his proposal for an independent central bank or for imposing constitutional limits for public debt and fiscal deficit. This is too constricting for a developing economy and the latter has not even worked in Europe where the Growth and Stability Pact has been regularly broken.

But he has given us enough to mull over and has set the right tone for political debate in this partisan and tribalistic society.