The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) - A liberating force for 70 years

Jamaica Observer:

The following is an edited version of the address by the former prime minister Edward Seaga on the occasion of the JLP's 70th anniversary function held on July 8, at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel.

TODAY, we gather on the very date, July 8, at the Jamaica Pegasus Hotel, which, exactly 70 years ago, in 1943, Alexander Bustamante and a team of like-minded political pioneers founded the Jamaica Labour Party.

The JLP was to have a profound influence on the affairs of Jamaica in the 70 years that followed.  It charted the critical direction at many cross-roads in the life of the nation.

When the first rush of political determination raised doubts and anxieties as to whether worthy leaders would emerge in 1944; when the Federal alliance subverted Jamaican goals, and confounded and bewildered the nationalist agenda in the 1950s; when the fledgling nation had to steady itself and find sure feet in the early years of Independence; when socialist experimentation and communist flirtation consumed the national consciousness with fear and plunged the nation into panic in the 1970s, it was the sure-footed, unswerving leadership of the JLP that steadied the country and charted a course of certainty.

Emerging Vision

Unmistakably, the surge of militancy of the 1930s was not to achieve self-government.  This was the objective of the nationalists whose mission at the time was more concerned with self-determination and the replacement of colonial government.  As such, that was a replacement of colonial bondage in which ideas of brotherhood and equality and ideals of a benevolent godfather state stirred personal commitment and patriotic response.

It was this compelling drive springing from the hopelessness of everyday conditions of the life of the mass of Jamaicans in the 1930s which surged to prominence in the last half of that decade.  It was this flow of events, driven by the imperatives of economic deprivation and social desperation that converged in 1938 with a bang.  As a result, it was the ordinary people who settled what needed change and when, by pooling their own demands for improved conditions into a momentous clamour and monstrous protest that broke loose on the waterfront, the sugar estates and in the public streets.  That powerful surge was to take Bustamante, who had been riding the tide, to the forefront of leadership and change forever the course of Jamaica's history.

Bustamante harnessed the anger of the working class and organised it into a force which liberated the strength of Jamaican workers to pave the way for that better future.  This liberated force of labour is the recurrent theme that was to dominate individual enterprise and political policy over the decades to come.  It was the first of many critical stages of our history in which the JLP liberated a new dimension of internal strength from within the people to power them into the next stage of take-off.

That next stage grew out of another phase of brewing frustration and bewildering directions.  As an emerging nation gearing toward full independence and self-determination in the 1950s, the course shifted dramatically as the decade aged.  Those who championed self-determination from the socialist struggle shifted the focus away from the growing confidence of Jamaicans ready and willing to shoulder the responsibilities of independence as a nation.  Great doubt was cast; it was believed that we could not shoulder the responsibilities of independence as a nation.  Great doubt was cast; we could not shoulder those burdens alone, it was said.  We needed to share the weight with other states much smaller, less populous and at a great distance, who were brothers and sisters we hardly knew.  It was, in fact, almost ludicrous: The stronger was to seek succour from the weaker.  Resentment grew about our need to rely on lesser states in which we could be bound in a federation as a minority player.  The nationalism which had little strength at the outset in the thirties and throughout the forties, was strident enough in the fifties to reject the notion that Jamaica was unable to make its own way as an independent nation.

The Next Phase

Alexander Bustamante and the JLP were absorbed earlier with liberating the power of the working class and focusing their energies on securing a better life.  That was the opening mission statement of the JLP. Nationhood was not on the agenda in the early days.  Two decades later, as the energy of the worker movement became more and more absorbed in the political drive, a new national focus with a new thrust was needed.  As the fifties drew to a close, the frustration and ambivalence of Jamaica's involvement in Federation would provide exactly the ferment that would be required to create the surge to the next dynamic phase of Jamaican history.

The JLP, led by Sir Alexander Bustamante, moved to the forefront of the impasse, took the driver's seat, directed the traffic and pulled Jamaica out of its paralytic association in the Federation of the West Indies with a resounding victory in the Referendum of September 19, 1961, a pivotal date in our history.

The independence of Jamaica which followed the JLP-led withdrawal from Federation was to be the new springboard.  But it had its uncertainties.  Many wondered, as in 1944, whether we were ready for leadership, this time entirely on our own.  And the same people who doubted the process of political advancement in 1944 were the same who expressed fears in 1962: the money interests, landed proprietors, and the emerging middle class of substance.  From these fears once again, the call was for a steady hand holding a steady course.  The JLP again was the people's choice, by general elections on April 10, 1962, to take Jamaica through this period of uncertainty.

New Dynamism

As Independence dawned on August 6 of that year, a new dynamism emerged: The creation of national symbols - the flag, the anthem, the motto; the showcasing of our traditional culture, now feelingly more so our own than ever before - the Jamaica Festival; the surge of art and craft and a showcase for these talents - Things Jamaican and Devon House; the salute to national heritage - designation of our National Heroes and the return of the body of Marcus Garvey to Jamaica; the birth of our popular music - ska, rocksteady, reggae.

The first salvo urging Jamaican ownership, the Jamaicanisation programme which led to:

The birth of the Jamaican Life Insurance Industry;

The Jamaicanisation of the financial sector;

Jamaican share ownership in publicly quoted stocks on the stock exchange,

The self-confidence of a nation of emerging economic strength expanding rapidly in mining. manufacturing, tourism and commerce;

The launch of a national airline, Air Jamaica;

The introduction of landmark social legislation and the expansion of social facilities - introduction of the National Insurance Scheme, new hospitals (Cornwall Regional and the Children's Hospital), introduction of family planning and doubling the number of secondary schools;

Membership in international institutions, giving us pride of place.

The decade of the sixties was no mere release of energy.  It was an outburst of positive, patriotic, productive, broad-based initiative, exuberance, creativity, enterprise and application of effort which has not been duplicated since.  It was Jamaica's golden age, the second wave of liberation of the positive energies of the Jamaican people with the JLP leading the way.

Had we continued on this route, the Jamaica of today would have been among the noted success cases of the developing world.  But that was not to be the case.  The People's National Party was elected to govern on February 29, 1972.  It was their second period as government.  Where the first effort under Norman Manley was dominated by the failed federal adventure, the second period under Michael Manley became dominated again by a foreign adventure, this time with an alien ideology and uneasy fraternity with socialist and communist bloc nations. This adventure also failed but not before Jamaica was torn and shredded.

Michael Manley tried to do what Bustamante and the JLP had done in the first and second terms of government.  Where Bustamante had liberated the dynamic of the working class and energised a prideful independent people, Manley wanted to unleash the Jamaican psyche, to raise social consciousness and create an egalitarian society.

Great Difference

There was a great difference in the two approaches.  The JLP liberated a positive dynamic which created a bigger cake to share.  It was a "pulling-up" process which was fuelled by the inner need to create, and achieved more.  The PNP was more concerned with dividing the cake into equal slices, a process which fed on envy of those whose bigger shares should be sliced thinner, a negative, "pulling-down" process.

Recent events recall the rejection of the "pulling down" ideologies as we have now come to see in the world-wide demise of socialism and communism.  They failed not because they were devoid of noble ideals, but because they were ideologies created from the top by authors who never asked the poor what was the first priority on their agenda.  Had they done so they would have understood that economic betterment is the simple ideological priority of ordinary people which ranks first and second.  The anger and frustration of diminishing slices of the national cake toppled the Berlin Wall and crushed the distributive ideologies.

Mission of the '80s

The forces liberated by adventure in socialism in the seventies did not succeed in expanding or building substance to increase the national cake.  Hence, once again, the seventies were a period of intense frustration and danger, as in the thirties, and to a lesser extent the late-fifties.  This set the stage for the third liberating movement which was to unleash a whole new dynamism in the 1980s.  And again, the JLP led this thrust and charted the course which was to shape Jamaica's future.  I had the responsibility to lead Jamaica into this new dynamic phase of the 1980s.

A legacy of the 1970s was the dependency of the individual on the state, a natural outcome of the primacy of the state in socialist doctrine.  In contrast, individual initiative and enterprise were to be the theme of the 1980s.  This was the untapped reservoir of energy to be liberated, a process began in the early days but stifled in the seventies.  The mission of the 1980s was to open this valve and release the energy of this enormous human potential responding to the push of achievement and the pull of reward.

In contrast to the closed society of the seventies, the eighties were to become the stage for the new lifestyle of the open society, In this process of "freeing-up", encumbrances to initiative and enterprise would have to go.

Government beauracracy would be deregulated starting with import controls, price controls and the simplification of the tax system.  Later, exchange control regulations would have to follow.

Demotivating taxes would be reduced to levels which did not stifle incentive.  Punitive income tax rates were simplified and reduced; import tariffs were decreased in stages to more acceptable levels.

The change of government on February 9, 1989 shattered the fragile model of economic management which had successfully restored the economic path of progress from which the country had been diverted over the previous dozen years.  What followed was painful recent history.

Gentler Nation

The valve to unleash new energies to propel the country forward to the end of the decade and century has its roots in the turmoil and abuses of the 1970s.  It was in that decade that Jamaicans awoke to the realisation that the Constitution of Jamaica chartered for Independence in 1962 was devised for a much kinder and gentler nation.  Certainly it was written in the shadow of those unwritten understandings which ensured that the subjects of the United Kingdom needed no written charter.  Everyone knew where the lines of misconduct were drawn and if the letter of the law did not spell out precisely the limits of power, no one would misuse the laxity of law to abuse the parameters of power because that simply wouldn't be cricket.  Long and great traditions established the boundaries of permissible levels of tolerance.

As a young nation we have no such long and great traditions of our own.  We borrow from other nations those values -- which govern society and reject what we wish, when we wish to abuse the system.  That plainly was the mode followed to instigate the most draconian violation of human values in our nation's history when the infamous State of Emergency was declared on June 19, 1976, on the flimsiest of grounds to justify the meanest of ends: political survival.  Jamaicans learned then that our constitution was elastic and could be stretched to shape many unconstitutional conveniences.

The JLP learned too, that year, that something had to be done to limit the elasticity of our Constitution which was not so much defective in what it says, but that it spoke in a soft voice where a stronger, firmer and more definite position should be stated.  And where the Constitution was not the instrument of abuse the spirit of the Constitution was mauled by the power of the prime minister. In the late-1970s, the JLP charted the course to whittle down these powers that opened the way to abuses in sensitive areas of our national life.

Landmark Decision

The power of the prime minister was the first phase of this mission and his right through his minister to control electoral affairs, the first target.  Out of this came the landmark decision in 1979 to remove the control of the minister over electoral affairs and the establishment of an independent Electoral Committee to take his place.  The mechanism for selecting the independent members by the governor general after consultation with the prime minister and leader of the opposition removed the final power of decision by the prime minister to make the choice on his own.  Next came the removal of that same power of unilateral decision making from other sensitive legislation already in existence: the ombudsman and the Integrity Commission, both in 1985.

Thereafter, legislation establishing the contractor general and media commission followed this course in 1985 and 1986, again ensuring that the prime minister would have no unilateral power to name the membership of these commissions but would have only consultative power on the same basis as the Leader of the Opposition in advising the governor general in making his choice.

The next phase in this course was to reduce the unilateral power of the Prime Minister in the appointment of members of the Police Service Commission and to remove the control of the police force from the minister, exactly as was done 14 years earlier with the electoral system.

People's Expectation

The struggle does not end with reducing the power of government at the level of the prime minister.  The abuse of human rights still continues.  I set our position clearly before the country in advocating the enactment of a new constitutional figure, the public defender, to deal with such abuses.

This would strengthen the hands of "we the people" in contrast to the existing structure which protects and licences "we the government". It is a reversal of the role of power and resolution of whose hands ultimate power will reside that the new dynamic of a truly free people will evolve.

Mission of the '90s

Having freed the working class in the thirties, freed the federal bonds in the fifties to pave the way for Independence in the sixties, freed the country from the blight of socialism in the seventies, freed the economy in the eighties from stifling controls, it remains now to free "we the people" from our own excesses in political empowerment.  The JLP has led the struggle through each of the stages of liberalisation and must accept this as a further mission.  Notwithstanding the imminent hardships of today there are fundamentally deeper concerns which we fail to observe, prejudicing the ability of the nation to protect its poor and vulnerable.

All men are equal under the law, says the Constitution.  But, in practice, we ignore this precept honouring some as first-class citizens but dishonouring the great majority as second-class.  Those in the underclass cannot contribute effectively to the building of the nation.  They lack the education and the will to work condemning themselves to the seventy per cent of the population that are dependent on others for help.  Until all men have equal respect and equal education they cannot contribute equally because they are unwilling and unable.  The building of the nation will rest on the 30 per cent who are more privileged but they are insufficient to give the nation growth.

Chapter 111 of the Constitution, the Human Rights section, has been virtually rewritten to produce a Charter of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms.  This is the instrument required to ensure that men have the right to be equal.  The Charter, of which I was the principal initiator, shifts the power of constitutional authority to "we the people".  This prevents any more draconian measures of injustice which widen the gap between "we the people and them", the "haves and the have nots".

Every year, schools graduate twice as many students who are uneducated as those with an education.  The uneducated are left behind with crippled careers while the educated go forward.  This is the wellspring of poverty, the source from which all injustice is derived, the splitting of the society into first- and second-class citizens.

The Charter of Rights, if put to work and not left to rot, or to serve the elusive benefit of the privileged, can create what all the plans of the past have failed to do: it will lay the course with the sure hands that guided Jamaica through the uncertain pathways of the crossroads of our history when it steadied the ship, righted the course and sailed into safe harbour.

And now having freed the working class in the thirties; freed the bonds of federation in the fifties to pave the way for Independence in the sixties; freed the country from the political blight of socialism in the seventies; freed the economy for production in the eighties, it remains now to free "we the people" through the Charter of Rights.

Let the Charter be your Magna Carta, let it be your book of life to complete the liberation led by the JLP.  "We the people" must be satisfied with nothing less than to unleash the powerful energies of the Charter of Rights to fulfil our destiny as a people.  That will be our greatest liberating mission of all.

July 14, 2013

Jamaica Observer

Jamaica: Redefining governance post-Bruce Golding

Redefining governance post-Golding

By LLOYD B SMITH

Even as Jamaicans breathe a sigh of relief in the wake of the departure of Bruce Golding as JLP leader and prime minister in what was a seamless transition, a dispassionate post-mortem needs to be done and a new job description arrived at for our head of government, the so-called first among equals.

Of course, one of the recurring challenges that beset any such attempt at meaningful discussion is the rabid tribalism that plagues the Jamaican society.  So much so that even when a perceived "independent" political analyst seeks to cut through the putrid fat of partisan fatuousness in order to get to the bone of the matter, he or she is likely to be pilloried, if the views expressed are not in sync with a particular party and its motley assortment of hacks and spin doctors.

In this vein, political discourse in many instances becomes a desperate attempt at playing to the gallery or is so overly "balanced" that it becomes lukewarm — neither hot nor cold — which leaves many readers and listeners in a stupor, not knowing whether to swallow or spit it out.

One of the unfortunate traits of many Jamaicans is a seeming inability to argue a point without "tracing" (verbal assault which often leads to one denigrating one's opponent).   This has become a regular feature in the political arena which also sees some talk show hosts and columnists joining in this kind of vacuous verbal diarrhoea leading to character assassination, especially when their victim speaks or writes the truth.   Yes, the truth hurts, and can be very offensive.

Against this background of intellectual dishonesty, if governance in Jamaica is to take on a meaningful trend, then the role of the media needs to be redefined in this burgeoning information age.   In the United States, for example, which is regarded as one of the bastions of democratic governance in the world, a journalist or newspaper can openly, or in any other acceptable way, endorse a political candidate or party.   Even newspapers, radio and television stations are known to co-exist peacefully and without threat of extinction, notwithstanding their particular ideological or partisan stance.

In Jamaica, because of the divisive, intimidatory and vindictive nature of our political culture, most media practitioners are forced to walk a tightrope, and so in many instances a latent form of hypocrisy laced with sycophancy and doublespeak becomes the order of the day.   "O judgement thou art fled to brutish beasts and men have lost their reason!" (Shakespeare - Julius Caesar)

I therefore posit that if good governance is to come to the fore and is sustainable, then the media in Jamaica must be truly liberated, not shackled by an archaic set of libel laws.  As the people's watchdog, it must be allowed to have more bite than bark which means that the politics of the day must become more enlightened, tolerant and accountable.

For this to happen, then those at the top must raise the bar of discourse within the context of contending opinions which too frequently become the news of the day via soundbytes and "select" headlines.  Newly installed Prime Minister Andrew Holness and Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller must declare their hands during the coming general election campaign because it cannot be business as usual.

At the outset of what was to be Golding's ill-fated "governorship", he set out to define his style of governance by dubbing himself the chief servant, a sobriquet fraught with good intention and a sincerity of purpose.  But very soon, the man who was also called "driva" found himself in a pickle and had to opt, in the final analysis, to put the interest of the party over patriotism.

Golding, in essence, became victim of a political system which he once abhorred but had to ultimately embrace in his quest for power.  Looking back, one may well ask if Golding had stuck with the National Democratic Movement through thick and thin, would his legacy have remained untarnished and would that fledgling party have gained enough social capital to take on successfully the status quo?

Interestingly and most intriguingly, Prime Minister Andrew Holness has attributed much of his political acumen to the mentorship of Edward Seaga and Bruce Golding.   He has, in one fell swoop, defined his political persona, and what remains to be seen is whether he will emulate the good qualities of his mentors or embrace their bad characteristics.

Picture a typical cartoon character with an angel on either shoulder (usually one is a good influence and the other bad).   We have been told that "Prince Andrew" is his own man; let's now see if he will be able to prove that he is not a chip off the old block, or worse, a clone.

From all indications, he has the acumen to rise to the occasion, but his most serious challenge will remain how he manages the JLP while steering the ship of state.   For this to happen, he will need all hands on deck, so I am very pleased that so far one commentator has described him as a consensus builder, because in redefining governance in Jamaica, the nation's leaders need to coalesce around certain objectives, and whoever is prime minister must lead that charge.

At the same time, prime minister and JLP leader Andrew Holness, now that he is fully in the saddle, must rein in those unrepentant "tribalists" who see as their only role that of tarring and feathering as well as running out of town anyone who dares to criticise him, the party or the Government of the day.

If Jamaica is to be governed effectively with equal rights and justice for all, then there must be room for dissent. We cannot all see things through one set of spectacles. Let the wheat and the tares grow together until the day of harvest.

Outside of the media and political leadership, the church and civil society need to play a more aggressive as well as assertive role in the redefining of governance in Jamaica.   The power and influence of civil society and the media were in full force during the Manatt/Dudus affair and we have seen the result of that debacle.

It has allowed a new day to dawn on the island's political landscape teeming with many possibilities.   Increasingly, the church must be the moral compass without taking sides, and civil society must pursue without fear or favour that route that leads to equity in terms of justice and economic opportunities.

Once again, Jamaica is at a crossroads and we must decide where we are going in real terms.   Winning an election must not be an end in itself, but the first step in a journey towards economic independence, peace, safety and national unity.   Whichever party wins, it will not be an easy road. Governance, not "gangsterism", must define our path. Enough said!

lloydbsmith@hotmail.com

October 25, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Election Politics in Jamaica and Guyana

By Rickey Singh

TODAY, while Jamaicans contemplate a forthcoming battle between incumbent leader of the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) Portia Simpson Miller, and the rising star of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Andrew Holness, to lead this nation following the next general election, Guyanese would be anxiously awaiting the official announcement of the date for new presidential and parliamentary elections.

The Guyana election date will come from its outgoing president, Bharrat Jagdeo, who became the youngest head of state in the Western Hemisphere at 35 and who will leave office at the comparatively young age of 47 after being executive president for a dozen years.

Constitutionally debarred from more than two successive five-year terms, Jagdeo is expected to announce Monday, November 28 as the date when the ruling People's Progressive Party (PPP) will seek an unprecedented consecutive fifth term in government, this time under the leadership of its current 60-year-old general secretary, Donald Ramotar, an economist.

Ramotar's primary opponent will be the 65-year-old ex-Brigadier of the Guyana Defence Force David Granger. He is the presidential candidate of a newly established opposition front, Partnership for National Unity which is dominated by the People's National Congress (PNC) that has been defeated by the PPP at all national elections since October 1992.

Here in Jamaica, now that Education Minister Holness has already obtained significant support from his JLP parliamentary colleagues, and appears to be popular within the party's traditional base, it is most likely that the endorsement for him to succeed Golding would be deferred for the party's November 19-20 annual convention.

By then, Guyana will be in the final week of election campaigning to choose a new 65-member Parliament and executive president. If in the case of Guyanese politics the incumbent PPP's central message will be, as already signalled, "continuity" for social and economic advancement, in Jamaica it would be quite different to market the new JLP leader with a similar message.

For, objectively, the social and political problems that finally forced Golding to quit as both party leader and prime minister (read the Christopher 'Dudus' Coke controversy as a major factor), would be very much part of the election campaign of the PNP's Simpson Miller. She can be expected to link Holness to the JLP's political culture — as difficult as such a strategy could prove.

The age factor has, surprisingly, been thrown into Jamaica's political mix of reasons for the sudden resignation announcement by Golding, who has chosen to emphasise a preference for a new generation of young leaders to be in control — in the best interest of the JLP and Jamaica.

Golding's plus & minus

The reality is that Golding, who will be 64 years old this coming December and is in good health, knows that age is not the substantive factor for his decision to walk away from the highest political office. He was certainly not going to face a leadership challenge at next month's convention, nor is he being magnanimous in suddenly making way for a suitable "young" successor.

Rather, having seriously compromised his political integrity in his controversial handling of the sensational issues that surrounded last year's extradition to the USA of the accused trafficker in drugs and guns, Christopher 'Dudus' Coke -- an influential JLP supporter -- Golding came to realise the serious damage he had wrought on confidence in his leadership judgement.

Further, and quite related, his decision was informed by how the Opposition PNP has been strategically manoeuvring to exploit the current national mood ahead of a new general election.
The suggestion that it's time to make room for a new generation of youthful leaders could also be self-serving as a parting shot by Golding against those elements within the JLP's decision-making councils and some senior Cabinet ministers who may have disappointed him at critical periods of his four years as leader of party and Government.

However, it is relevant to note here that even the more strident critics or opponents of Bruce Golding would have difficulty in ignoring an evident factor in his favour as a politician. He has, over the years, demonstrated a firm commitment to democratic governance (in party and government) — even when it came to opposing the leadership-style politics of his former mentor, Edward Seaga.

Some feel that Golding's plus factor would also point to the cultivation of a reputation for opposing corruption; And now, by his decision to quit as prime minister and JLP leader, he hopes to be remembered as a politician who did not wish to perpetuate himself in the structure of party leadership.

Holness vs Simpson Miller

Golding is departing as the first prime minister of Jamaica to voluntarily leave office without completing a first term. He is also the second to give up the prime ministership while still in good health, the first being P J Patterson.

So far as the PNP is concerned, having put to rest — expediently or not — some of the very bruising areas of internal division and discontent, it now appears as a party under Simpson Miller's continuing leadership, to be in readiness to resume control of the reins of state power when the election bell rings, either early or late next year -- depending on how the political wind is blowing with Holness as prime minister.

What both Holness and Simpson Miller would have in common is a desire to be prime minister for at least a full five-year term. The PNP leader had originally served in that office for less than a year when she succeeded Patterson before calling the September 3, 2007 general election that was lost to the JLP in a very tough battle and close outcome in terms of popular votes cast.

The PNP cannot, however, be unaware that the timing and manner of Golding's decision to quit as prime minister and leave the political landscape well ahead of a new general election would necessitate a critical reassessment of the party's electoral strategy for 2012.

Having already invested so much political capital in hammering away at the leadership blunders of Golding over the "Dudus fiasco" and more, the PNP would understand the need for its own post-Golding adjustments, which could also be a serious challenge for the JLP under the leadership of Holness.

October 09, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Jamaica: After Christopher “Dudas” Coke, soul-searching

After Dudus, soul-searching
Keith Noel, Contributor
jamaica-gleaner:

IT IS now time to speak the truth and apportion blame.  I say speak the truth first because this requires thought, it demands guts, and it holds the answers.  It will literally 'set us free'.  Only after we speak the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, will we be in a position to apportion blame.

Let us all speak the truth, at least to ourselves.  Those who were in politics in the days when we first began to exploit the poor for their votes must answer hard questions; moreso those politicians who, to ensure political success, extended this to the point of putting guns in the hands of disadvantaged youth.  Those politicians who lied to the country, telling us that it was 'the other side' who was responsible for the gun violence, must converse with their conscience, along with those who, when in power, built high-rise housing communities and ensured they were peopled with his/her political supporters only.

And most of all, those politicians who, after realising that the garrison communities they had created had spawned a type of criminal who grew increasingly powerful, continued to give excuses for hugging them up, attending their funerals and repeating euphemisms about them 'protecting' their communities.  And I include those who lamely gave 'lists' of the names of these men to the police, in a facile attempt to lessen their power.

Hard-pressed

We now hear business leaders speak of the efforts they made to battle extortion.  Unless they come forward and speak about how easily they gave in to the criminals - admit their fear, confess their actual complicity at times - we will be in for another round of lies and will so easily slip back into the mode we are trying to escape.  And this includes all - the man with the emporium to the corner shopowner, the man with the fleet of buses, to the one running a single taxi.

Most hard-pressed will be the police.  I am not speaking only about the crooked cop who extorts money from a speeding driver or from a bar owner operating outside the scope of his licence.  More in need of this internal review will be the policeman who has been in the payroll of the don.  The cop who has passed on information about police activity, turned a blind eye, or helped him in other ways and, in so doing, has increased the level of public mistrust of the police!  So too, the honest cop who shrugs when his colleague does wrong!

Then, our entertainers.  In order to gain popularity among criminal elements, or to get their financial support, some have become spokespersons and proselytizers of the doctrine of the don.  It is they who have spread the 'informer fi dead' message and have encouraged youth to report offences to the big man and not the police.  It can NOT be 'money talk, an everything else park', his/her mind can not only be on the financial bottom line.  The bottom line must be the youth!  The media also must soul-search because, in an effort to gain popularity by being 'liberal' and 'of the people', some media persons have encouraged the anarchy that these entertainers have propounded.

But most of all, the general public has to accept blame.  Every man or woman who has had their purse stolen, their son beaten up, their daughter raped, and who reported it to the 'big man' instead of the police, has helped to establish this new order.  Every citizen who claims that the young 'shotta' in the lane is a 'defender' of the community and protected him when the police came to investigate a crime, is part of the problem.  So, too, is the church leader who, in his effort to maintain peace in the community, has turned a blind eye to any illegal activity of those he or she is trying to help.

Every person, public official or private citizen, must examine himself.  All of us, the church leaders, the school principals, the librarians who, in accepting that their institutions belong to the community, might have unwittingly or tacitly accepted the unrequested protection of the 'area leader', must now search for ways to let them and the community know that it is the ordinary folk on whom they depend, not any 'big man'.

Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com

June 7, 2010

jamaica-gleaner