“History” stated Thomas Carlyle “is but the biography of great men.” Leo Tolstoy disagreed completely. “In historical events great men — so called — are but the labels that serve to give a name to an event.”

Are rulers the masters or slaves of their circumstances? Who wins the battle, the general or his troops? The only correct answer to these age old questions seems to be “It depends”.

The holocaust is practically inconceivable without Hitler. And without Lenin a communist Russian revolution could probably never have taken place. There was no sense of inevitability about either event and individual decisions were crucial to the final outcome.

On the other hand it is difficult to view Abraham Lincoln as historically indispensable. The Union had a massive economic and numerate superiority during the American civil war. Regardless of who was president the Confederacy’s eventual defeat was all but inevitable. The American emancipation proclamation was primarily a matter of policy. Freeing the slaves guaranteed the Union the moral support of Britain and Western Europe and so ensured a Confederate defeat. Here circumstances truly dictated the end result.

However remarkable his talents no leader is ever counted great without a crisis to overcome. Nearly all national heroes have led their countries in war or into independence. Had there been no World War II Winston Churchill would have been a historical footnote. He was a mediocre peacetime figure who made no lasting administrative or economic contributions. But his inspiring leadership and oratory ensured that his name is synonymous with Britain’s and perhaps democracy’s ‘finest hour’. Would Britain have been defeated or sued for peace had Churchill not been Prime Minister? One of the great what ifs.

Napoleon was supposedly the quintessential leader of men, the archetypal ‘world historical figure’ who bent events to his will and created his own destiny. But in his words “A man is only a man. If circumstances are not favourable, he is nothing. But often a man can do much; often he is a tinderbox in the midst of inflammable matter.”

So are Jamaica’s leaders to blame for its problems? Our history is a strange one. Between 1944 and 1972 we were perhaps the most successful ‘developing nation’ in the world. (‘Independence’ only came in 1962 but we began shaping our own destiny when we began choosing those who shaped national policy.) Since 1972 we have been one of the planet’s great under achievers. Thirty years ago UNDP indicators based on life expectancy, income and education put us ahead of Trinidad, Barbados, Costa Rica and Singapore on. We are now far behind all of them. In 1972 for instance Trinidad’s per capita GDP was almost the same as Jamaica’s. It is now more than twice as large.

And we have fallen not only in relative but absolute terms. In constant dollars per capita income here was US $2,422 in 1970. It is now below US $1,800. In 1972 there were 169 murders in Jamaica. In 1999 there were 848. By any standards our performance as a nation over the past three decades has been dismal. Disastrous would be too strong a word, for we can still boast one of the world’s oldest uninterrupted democracies and an admirably free and vigorous press. But others with not a tenth of our resources have achieved far more.

Might the country’s destiny have been different with different leaders? Certainly the nation was blessed in its early days with the responsible restraint of Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley. Whatever their disagreements - and they were at times quite abusive to each other – they always subjugated individual interests to national ones.

Bustamante’s role was especially crucial. As the unchallenged and almost blindly followed leader of the masses in the early stirrings of independence he really could have taken the nation in any direction he wanted. But he steered the ship of state between the shoals of right wing authoritarianism and communist dictatorship. One only has to look at the Dominican Republic and Cuba to see what paths Jamaica might have taken after 1938.

For the first 10 years of independence the principles instilled by Busta and Norman were adhered to. There were clearly defined boundaries which were not crossed no matter how sharp personal or political differences. But somehow about 1972 the concept of restraint vanished. Did a frustrated people start demanding more radical solutions, or were the new leaders more willing to do anything to seek and keep power?

A chicken and egg question. Yet looking at the destinies of Jamaica and Trinidad one wonders what would have happened if Eric Williams had been Jamaican and Michael Manley Trinidadian. For though both were authors, Williams and Manley seemed opposites in all else.

Williams was respected but never loved by Trinidadians. Certainly they now admire the manner in which he channeled the nation’s oil wealth into improving its industrial base. (As witnessed by all the ads for Trinidadian manufactured products we see on Jamaican television.) But his austere and arrogant personality reportedly alienated even his cabinet members. Many resented his firm hand rule, as shown by the 1971 attempted coup. Yet none can deny that under Williams’ stewardship the lot of the average Trinidadian improved immensely.

Manley on the other hand inspired genuine affection among Jamaicans. Perhaps only Bustamante was so loved by the common man. And he undoubtedly engineered much needed social change. But in cold economic terms his government was an unmitigated failure, wasting much of our bauxite proceeds on non-productive distributive programs. Between 1972 and 1980 Jamaica’s real per capita GDP fell by over 20%. Manley remains the only elected leader who left Jamaica significantly poorer than he found it.

But even if they had been given the choice would Jamaicans have elected a stern disciplinarian like Williams? And though most of them did not prosper during his 1970s administration, Jamaicans voted Manley back into power in 1989. He now graces the $1,000 bill and polls are in favour of making him a national hero.

So where does the ultimate praise or blame lie – with our leaders or we the people who choose them? changkob@hotmail.com