http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20051002/focus/focus5.html
Published: Sunday | October 2, 2005

' POPULISM IS one of those terms that no-one seems to be able to define precisely. But it can probably best be described as politics which caters to the short-term demands of the mob at the expense of long-term national development. It is government that provides bread and circuses instead of roads and aqueducts. To paraphrase an old cliché, it's giving people fish to eat instead of teaching them how to fish.

Populists are often wildly popular at the start as they shower largesse on the masses. But, their squandering of their country's reserves on non-productive initiatives inevitably cripples the economy and causes the populace to angrily turf them out - peacefully in established democracies and violently in less fortunate places. But, such is human nature that often a little while down the road people start looking back nostalgically at the 'good old days' when the 'lover of the poor' made the living so easy for so many, even though it couldn't and didn't last.

It's a story that's been played out many times in many countries. We in Jamaica have been on, the whole, fortunate in never having been ruled by an out and out populist. The closest we had was Michael Manley, who did indeed squander much of the economic advances Jamaica had made in the 1950s and 1960s and left the average Jamaican some 30% poorer when he was voted out in 1980 compared to when he took power in 1972. But, Mr. Manley in the end respected this country's democratic traditions and never tried to destroy the admirably resilient political system which had been so painstakingly created by Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley.

WAS JAMAICA LUCKY?

Maybe Jamaica was just lucky that Michael did not have enough money to carry out all those grand plans he was always espousing.

Look at what Hugo Chavez is doing in Venezuela today. An old fashioned strong man dictator who clearly believes he is the font of all political wisdom, Chavez is using the $70 per barrel oil money with which his coffers are awash to transform Venezuela into what he calls a Bolivarian Republic, but which to outsiders increasingly resembles a one party state. He has created a hostile and intimidatory climate for journalists, attacked and stifled the productive sector, and of late turned to that old populist favourite, seizing 'unproductive' land.

Chavez, a few years ago seemed to have run his course as his policies had pretty much bankrupted the country and stirred up huge demonstrations against him. But the utter stupidity of the Bush regime in trying to foment a coup against him and a timely surge in oil prices has seen his popularity soar again. Chavez's anti-US rhetoric and his cheap oil offer to Jamaica and other Latin American countries have made him popular in some quarters. Yet, those who judge politics through democratic lens must find his autocratic tendencies hard to stomach. Gushing petrodollars may make his reign longer than that of the average Latin American despot, but he will, in all probability, suffer the usual fate - ignominious flight with the economy and institutions of his country having been set back decades.

POWER BY THE BALLOT

Yet it must be remembered that Chavez came to power by the ballot, albeit only after his attempt to shoot his way into power failed. And the main reason for his electoral triumph was Venezuela?s bankrupt political system. Though the longest continuously democratic country in South America, party politics there before Chavez had become a corrupt old boy?s club with each set of crooks taking their turn to fill their pockets. Fed up and angry, the people turned to a true outsider who promised to smash this crooked cabal - and so 'Down with the fat cats!' and 'Vive Hugo!'.

What does all this have to do with Jamaica? Well you hear a lot of people these days saying they can?t bother to vote because 'the two party them is the same and nothing going to change no matter who is in power'. And whether it's because she is a woman or because she is seen as someone from a working class background who 'love poor people', a widespread feeling seems to have taken root that the only person who can change the status quo is Portia Simpson. Two separate ladies expressed virtually identical feelings to me this week along the lines of 'I haven't voted in 10 years but I would vote for Portia. None of the others could get me to vote. Only Portia'.

AN ENIGMA

Now as someone who doesn't go to many functions and doesn't know many political insiders, I find Ms. Simpson something of an enigma. She is no doubt an articulate and charismatic lady with the irreplaceable political gift of connecting easily with crowds. But I've never seen or heard her do anything particularly memorable and she has never run a major government ministry.

You hear all sorts of contradictory stories about her. According to some she is an able delegator who has performed well in her portfolios and has the full backing of the PNP hierarchy because they see her presence as a guaranteed fifth term. Others say she is intellectually lazy and does not do her homework and PNP insiders are desperately trying to keep her from succeeding P.J. Patterson because they know she cannot even manage ministerial duties properly much less run the country. Well they say 'if it no go so it go close to so'. But they also say 'believe half of what you see and none of what you hear'. So take your pick.

Now commentators are always referring to 'class prejudice against Portia'. You even hear talk about 'Drumblairites' plotting to keep her on the sidelines. Yet is her background any 'poorer' than that of P.J. Patterson or Omar Davis? Furthermore she's married to former Cable and Wireless CEO Errald Miller and lives in upscale Jack?s Hill. Whatever her origins she cannot possibly be now classified as 'working class'.

Personally, Ms. Simpson is a bit too much of an unknown quantity for my tastes. That the Jamaican political system needs shaking up there can be no doubt - something is seriously wrong when less than half of an eligible electorate bothers to vote. But I don't know that she is the right person to carry out the changes our body politic really needs. I don't know that she is the wrong person either. But I've read enough history to realise that drastic change is not always necessarily for the better and that the cry of 'Anything must be better than this!' is often a 'famous last words' prelude to disaster. I still have vivid youthful memories of 1972 crowds cheering on another politically unknown quantity with ecstatic shouts of 'Better Must Come'. But it certainly didn't.

None of this has anything to do with Ms. Simpson's sex. While in American media-inundated Jamaica the idea of a female leader might seem novel, women presidents and prime ministers have become a pretty common occurrence in much of the world. There are actually six current female Presidents - in Finland, Ireland, Latvia, The Philippines, Sri Lanka, San Marino - and four woman Prime Ministers - in Bangladesh New Zealand, Mozambique and São Tomé Princípe. In 1999, Sweden became the first country to have more female ministers than male, 11 women and nine men. And the two main parties that contested the 2001 Bangladesh general elections were both led by women.

On the whole, women don't seem to make better or worse leaders than men. There have been both outstanding women rulers like Margaret Thatcher and Dame Eugenia Charles, and disastrous ones like Isabel Peron and Benazir Bhutto, while 'iron ladies' like Golda Meir and Indira Gandhi definitely showed that women can be as tough as it takes and are not afraid to wage war if they deem it necessary. The myths that women are 'too soft to lead' or are automatically 'kinder and gentler' leaders have been proven by history to be just that.

SUPERIOR SEX

To be sure, in Jamaica where females are increasingly regarded as a superior sex - or at least more disciplined, focused and hard working - there is a growing feeling that it is indeed time to give a woman a chance. Indeed I myself would love to see someone like the no nonsense Dame Eugenia take charge here. But to be honest I've seen no indication that Ms. Simpson has that kind of 'get it done' fire in the belly. Her handling of the National Solid Waste Management Authority scandal for instance was certainly not a striking example of decisive and timely action with prompt punishment being dealt out to transgressors.

Indeed Ms. Simpson often comes across as someone who has risen to where she is more my circumstances than by naked ambition. Which may be why there are so many whispers about possible 'powers behind the throne' if she does become Prime Minister. But again all this is speculation - which leads back to the point of what she stands or doesn't stand for. Would she be a decisive reformer who revitalised her nation like Maggie Thatcher or a complete incompetent who almost destroyed her country like Isabel Peron?

With Omar Davis or Bruce Golding or Peter Phillips the country has a fair idea of what it is getting. For they have all run major ministries in the past with some degree of competence. Portia Simpson in my view is really a 'puss in a bag'. But of course it's not me who will be choosing the next PNP president or the next Prime Minister. The real question is whether the Jamaican people are going to choose a relatively safe pair of hands with Bruce or Peter or Omar, or whether they are so fed up with the 'same old same old' that they will venture into the unknown with Portia. But thats why they call it democracy.