http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20060219/focus/focus7.html
Published: Sunday | February 19, 2006

SELDOM HAS a country been blessed with such contrasting, yet complementary, founding fathers as Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley.

Although distant cousins - itself a blessing as their disagreements seldom rose above the level of a good-natured family squabble - they were polar opposites in nature and outlook. They agreed on rigid adherence to British parliamentary tradition, but diverged on almost everything else.

Bustamante was a capitalist businessman, Manley a socialist lawyer. Manley wanted immediate independence, Bustamante was a confirmed 'walk before running' gradualist.

Norman was a great believer in plans, 'Busta' saw overly detailed plans as distractions from pressing concerns.

POLITICAL MATURITY

Thanks to this governmental yin and yang, Jamaica achieved political maturity in an astonishingly short time and in an amazingly incident-free manner.

Civil wars and revolutions and coups and assassinations have been distressingly common throughout the third world. But not a single major political disturbance has occurred in Jamaica between the 1938 riots and the present day.

All this brings to mind Sherlock Holmes' in Silver Blaze.

[Inspector Gregory: "Is there any point to which you would wish to draw my attention?"

Holmes: "To the curious incident of the dog in the night-time."

Inspector: "The dog did nothing in the night-time."

Holmes: "That was the curious incident."]

STABILITY

For the most outstanding aspect of Jamaican political history is that not once since the first universal suffrage elections of 1944 has the legitimacy of an elected government ever been challenged.

Every defeated government has gracefully accepted the will of the people, which in the end is the true test of democracy. That above all is the magnificent legacy of Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley.

COMMON SENSE OF JAMAICANS

Yet great as 'Busta' and Manley were, Jamaica's democratic stability is also a vivid testimony to the sturdy common sense of the Jamaican people.

They have so far rejected the 'saviour on horseback', 'workers' paradise' and 'instant prosperity now' blandishments that have ruined so many countries.

Dictatorship, socialism and populism have all withered on the tough-minded pragmatist will of our electorate.

True, the 1980 election with its near civil war violence - although how puny 800 murders seem now compared to last year's 1,600 plus! - tested our mettle severely.

But, in the end, people voted, the ballots were counted, and when Michael Manley realised he had lost, he gracefully handed the reins of power to Edward Seaga. Jamaican democracy had walked through the valley of death and survived.

From a cold bottom line perspective, the 1970s were a disaster from which some say Jamaica has never recovered.

Even today official per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is by some counts lower than it was in 1972.

Yet, just as teenagers need to rebel against parents to find themselves, so perhaps young countries have to revolt against traditional mores to fully mature.

Certainly, the 'democratic socialism' experiment cured Jamaica forever of ideological fervour and rendered 'leftist' and 'rightist' political labels meaningless.

In a way the upcoming People's National Party (PNP) presidency election represents another milestone in Jamaican democracy.

It is the first party leadership race to be contested in the open, expensive and bruising American presidential primary-style. A lot of harsh words have been thrown around, but that's politics. George Bush senior accused Ronald Reagan of promoting 'voodoo economics' in the 1980 Republican campaign, yet Reagan still chose Bush as running mate.

Another big difference, some say, is that rather than being hand-picked by constituency MP's as in the past, the delegates in this contest are truly independent, beholden to no one.

If true, this means that instead of reflecting mostly the will of party insiders as has been the custom, the delegates' vote will this time be the real voice of the people, or at least PNP diehards.

CONFLICTING REPORTS

The official four horse contest is now widely considered a Peter Phillips and Portia Simpson match race, though a few still whisper Omar Davis as a potential dark horse upsetter.

Dr. Phillips is popularly seen as the candidate of the insider-driven PNP political machine, while Portia Simpson is supposed to be the choice of the masses.

You hear conflicting reports about strength on the ground. Some say the doubts about Mrs. Simpson Miller's mostly unknown capabilities and policy opinions are growing larger under closer scrutiny. The Phillips 'Don't Take a Chance' campaign is pushing this scenario strongly. To others, Ms. Simpson has built up unbeatable rank and file momentum.

Some sense increasing nervousness in the Phillips' campaign. But if Mrs. Simpson Miller is so confident, why did she make such strenuous efforts to avoid the planned leadership debate?

No one really knows except the 3,944 delegates who will vote on Saturday. Their composition is a bit of a mystery to john public, but they are surely a closer approximation to the electorate than the PNP executive or the Private sector Organisation of Jamaica.

COLUMNISTS' VIEWS

To an outsider who has never met either, the reactions of pundits who know them well are very interesting. For instance, reliably PNP columnists like Arnold Bertram, Heather Robinson, and Michael Burke have come out strongly for Dr. Phillips and accused Mrs. Simpson Miller's campaign of opportunism and dividing her party. They have even cast thinly veiled aspersions on her intellectual capabilities and of those who would vote for her.

On January 29, Mr. Bertram wrote that Paul Burke, a senior strategist for Mrs. Simpson Miller, "... revived the political fortunes of the JLP" with a document alluding to "Abuse of State Financing in the Presidential Campaign".

On February 3, Ms. Robinson wrote "And when someone chooses to be a late non-starter for a debate, let us insist that we see a rebroadcast of the 1992 debate/discussion. Any child who has participated in the National Schools' Debating Competition will tell you that it requires proper training and the capacity to think on one's feet."

On February 2, Michael Burke even took a public jab at his brother Paul. "Portia's unspoken but obvious use of glamour in an election suggests that she thinks that the delegates are stupid. If she wins on that pretext, then not only does she think that but knows that they are ... But I feel insulted even though I am not a member of any political party and indeed not a delegate. And please remember that my views and those of my brother Paul Burke do not always coincide."

Yet Dawn Ritch, a bitter critic of this PNP regime, strongly pushes Portia's candidacy.

On November 27, 2005 she declared "Polls confirm that Omar Davies is a waste of time, that Peter Phillips is the same old thing ... Mrs. Simpson Miller is by far the most popular politician in the country.

The only question is whether the PNP delegates will select a candidate who is bound to lose, or a candidate who is a front-runner in the minds of others."

To be sure, after the last general election Jamaican political polls no longer inspire the confidence they once did. At any rate, polls outside election campaigns are notoriously unreliable. Many a mile wide and inch deep lead have evaporated in the heat of battle.

Former JLP parliamentary candidate, Lloyd B. Smith, has publicly endorsed Portia and, on January 31, wrote. "Dr Phillips' outburst against me has me extremely worried. ... am I to understand that this is a sign of things to come should he become prime minister? Am I to expect severe, extreme and resolute measures against me if I am not in his corner?"

STRANGE BEDFELLOWS

All this brings to mind the old proverb 'See me and come live with me are two different things'. It's strange to see comrades 'licking out' against the candidate who polls say would bring a fifth term, while Labourites are 'hugging up' the person who on paper is the most likely to defeat their current leader. But then politics makes strange bedfellows.

Mrs. Simpson Miller's education, or lack of it, has been much debated. But she certainly is more formally educated than Alexander Bustamante and Hugh Shearer were and, statistically, these were Jamaica's best prime ministers.

On the other hand, some spurious comparisons have been made between her and Bustamante. Those who denigrate Sir Alexander's intellect should remember that he first came to public prominence through trenchant letters to The Gleaner and might be Jamaica's greatest letter writer. Education and intelligence are different animals, and the past is a guide to the future only if remembered accurately.

For what they're worth ­ probably what they cost ­ my odds are Dr. Phillips and Mrs. Simpson Miller even money, Dr. Davis 10-1 and Dr. Blythe 100-1. But political analyst Tony Myers, who has observed these matters closely from 'Busta/Manley' days and is usually on the money, confidently predicts that Jamaica's next Prime Minister will be a lady.

Whoever the delegates choose on Saturday, life in Jamaica will go on as normal on Sunday.

Democracy in the end is faith in the common sense of the masses. The Jamaican people have always chosen well at the ballot box. Why should the 3,944 PNP delegates not also do so?