The coming of Portia, a discussion

This is an exchange of emails between myself and a friend in Europe about the coming transfer of power in Jamaica from P.J. Patterson to Portia Simpson-Miller.


First I sent the news report of Portia Simpson-Miller's election to the leadership of the People's National Party, then, from my friend:

Yes, my dear, I did hear this - I must admit that I am in wait-and-see
mode... I don't think that lack of sophistication or formal education are
either here or there: what I'm not at all sure about is her political
judgment. She has an uphill task ahead of her, since (1) she has been
elected by a minority of voters (she did not win 50% of all votes cast, only
something like 42%: the people who voted for Omar would probably have been
Phillips' supporters in a 2nd round); and (2) she does not have the support
of the Parliamentary Party, which is deeply suspicious of her, and likely to
undermine her as much as possible, while lining themselves up to challenge
her for the leadership once her attraction starts to pall... the dangers of
being a populist!! However, if she keeps her head firmly screwed on, and
listens to good advice, she could yet weather the storm, and grow in stature
over time...

Then came my first reply:

Lack of sophistication is not a problem per se (it didn't stop Bustamante,
who was skilled in picking people who had intellectual heft and savoir faire
to work under him). The thing is can she manage to control both the
intellectual elite within the party and the local activists without whom the
party is nothing? It will be interesting to see how she reshuffles the
cabinet and what new(ish) blood she brings in.

Frankly, though, I think it is about time for the party to take a dose of
opposition and let Bruce try to handle the intractable problems of the economy. For one thing, that will allow a younger generation to rise within
the party.

With Eddie out of the way, and with Pearnel no longer a contender for
leadership, the JLP is not going to be as thoroughly annoying as it has been
in the past.

(I know that at the last election there were people who would not have voted
but for the possibility that Eddie might come back as PM. That would have
been a horror.)

To which my friend responded:

Yes, I agree with EVERY WORD! A dose of Opposition WOULD do the PNP good,
and allow the party, as you say, to attract and test new blood. It would do
the country good too: it's not wise for one party, no matter how basically
progressive, to stay in power for such a long time. And it's time for the
JLP to put up or shut up, and show what it can actually DO, what solutions
it proposes for the problems... and deal with the fact that nothing tough
gets solved overnight... I'm looking forward to seeing it:). With Eddie a
spent force, and Pearnel out of the running, as you say, things will not be
as dire as they could have been - but I'll be interested in the country's
reaction to the JLP's first fumbling efforts. Or will the Establishment
press censor itself as usual and be moderate and tactful even in their
criticism?

I commented that:

Right now, with ideology shoved over to the side, the JLP and the PNP are not very different -- both are catch-all, cross-class alliances that have ties to both business and labour.

Neither party is going to go against the Washington Consensus, and neither seems to contain anyone with radical social or economic prescriptions. That being said, the PNP has been in power too long. It needs to recharge its batteries and let some new faces emerge. I can't see Bruce Golding doing anything particularly horrible (though, as I don't know the man, I could be very wrong).

Well, we'll see. It's a year or so till the next election. Perhaps Portia will lead the PNP to a fifth term. I won't hold my breath though.

To which my friend responded:

I wonder, though, how similar they really are... the tiny differences in policy can make huge diferences in outcome - say, in the area of education, or job-creation, or affordable housing for poor and lower-middle income families, public health services... I'm very worried about the kind of 'privatize every dam' thing' approach that seems to chracterize the JLP approach to the provision of public services.

Yes, Bruce Golding is an amiable enough man - but what is his vision for the country? What does he plan to do about lifting people out of poverty and ensuring that ALL our children get a high-quality, and relevant, education? I know the PNP's steps in that direction have been only tentative, because nothing given to the poor must be seen to be taken from the rich or middle-class... but if a JLP government were to continue with the blue-print, and implement it with enthusiasm, even if they added nothing new of their own, at least we could say that a certain level was maintained, that we won't fall back. But I'm really afraid that, in some key areas, the JLP will feel that enough money has been invested in the undeserving poor, and they could stop now - which would represent a huge step back... what do you think?

I really don't see Portia winning the next election, but you can never tell...

My response to this was:

You make very good points, small differences can make large differences in outcome. The problem is that the PNP and the JLP have become what they were in the 50s and early 60s, parties with small differences in programme and noticeable differences in rhetoric.

The progressive movement is now to a large degree outside both parties (however much nostalgia Paul Burke or Omar Davies may have). JFJ and CAFFE have taken up the energies of people of our type who want to do something to make Jamaica a better place -- and they see it as requiring that they stand outside the arena of party politics.

The problem is that neither the PNP nor the JLP has any plan for raising the standard of living and quality of life of the mass of Jamaicans. They can't do nothing, their union bases would revolt, but neither seems to want to do very much. The JLP if and when it comes to power is going to give its 'deserving poor' a break or two, and it's going to talk about the need to provide education and health care. It's also not going to do very much.

The reality today is that there are two Jamaicas, and they are communicating with each other less and less. One of the few things they have in common is a belief that brutality produces discipline; so both the JLP and PNP want to give the police more power, but want to go about it in slightly different ways. Somehow, I don't think that these difference are going to matter very much to the people who find themselves at the sharp end of the bayonet.

Bruce will probably find a way to say that the undeserving poor is responsible for its own poverty. But I've heard such language from people who still think they're progressive. And, frankly, I don't think PJ gives two hoots for the marginalised poor, and I've no idea how much Portia cares about them (beyond needing to keep some of them happy in order to keep her seat).

Increasingly, the poor are being led by their local dons, er, community leaders, and it is these people who dole out a bit of charity here, a scholarship there, a trip to hospital, and other petty cash expenditures that serve to keep the urban below-the-radar poor loyal to them. The formal institutions of state seem to matter less and less.

I suspect you're right that Portia won't be able to win, but we shall see. Politics is full of surprises.

My friend's response:

You know, you're absolutely right about the extent/lack of interest, in either party, for the plight of the poor. And it is frightening to hear what kinds of 'solutions' people who would define themselves as progressive have the gall to put forward, in fact it's even more frightening to to see what they consider the actual problems to be... I'm thinking of the idea to sterilize poor women who 'have too many children', floated by Sharon Hay-Webster; the issue came up in conversation just last weekend, over lunch, and I almost came to blows with people whom I would otherwise consider my friends - and they almost came to blows with me. I don't think I had realized the extent of the polarization, the really distorted perceptions that are around. The point you make about brutality being considered the way to discipline.

The thing is, from a long experience of observing politics in Europe, from within the international organization for which I work, I've come to the conclusion that it is impossible to achieve lasting change by extra-parliamentary means. No, let me back up a bit - what I mean is, I am a strong believer in local and community initiatives, I think they have the potential to punch well above their weight, and even change the political, social and cultural consensus (look at what the Rastafarians have achieved) - however, only if you're in government, if you're actually wielding political power, can you get the laws passed which consolidate that consensus and make sure the laws on the books are actually enforced. In fact, if the political will is there (though I suppose it isn't, otherwise we wouldn't be having this conversation), you can make a good start in pioneering change - although another lesson I've learned is that you really cannot ram change down people's throats, you can't force them to do what they don't want to (except at the gunpoint), and as a politician, you can't get too much ahead of the prevailing consensus, however retrograde that consensus may be... So I would want to see a proliferation of groups like JFJ (which has really tackled a core issue, one which the Establishment had never recognized as such before), so galvanizing public opinion that new and different ways of thinking have to be reflected in the parties, and the parties find themselves having to respond to new, progressive demands. There's no point the progressive movement being outside the parties, they need to get in there and rock the boat, turn it around and steer it in another direction - we can't leave power in the hands of the most backward-looking elements, can we... :)

By the way, do JFJ have a website? I'm really very impressed with Carolyn Gomes : I was in JA over Christmas, so was able to follow the debate between herself, Mr Pantry and the Chief Justice 'live', so to speak. Earlier, John Maxwell had also written a very balanced piece (it can happen...) about how injustice can become institutionalized, even if those dispensing it are well-intentioned, and I hope that the heat and the pressure on the judicial system will be turned up higher still. I'm returning home to JA in 2-3 yrs' time, and JFJ is a group I would want to join. I've heard of CAFFE, but don't quite remember what their aims are or in what areas they are active - do you have more information?

My response, the last in the series was:

I have always been surprised by the mentality of those who believe that poor women just pop babies out for fun, and have no thought for the consequences. Real education about birth control, about STDs and about the consequences of becoming a parent is apparently just too hard. As, apparently, is working to create the opportunities that will ensure that young women have choices that they will want to pursue -- in the process deciding to control their fertility since they'll have an interest in doing so. Not to mention giving young men opportunities that will fulfil their need for achievement, which would reduce the desire to 'prove' themselves through fathering children.

It is so much easier to say that the poor are busily perpetuating their poverty (perhaps even taking a perverse delight in living in oppressive conditions) than to do something that would help end that poverty. Much easier to call the unemployed and desperate 'idlers' rather than do something that would ensure that they were employed and hopeful. Much, much easier just to say 'A so Jamaica people stay' rather than seeking to change the conditions that create behaviour that the middle class despises.

I agree with you, Jamaica needs a more developed civil society. More groups like JFJ and CAFFE that speak up about the actions of the state, and put pressure on the political parties, the bureaucracy, and the middle class public that is so eager to condemn people who live like their (the middle class people's, that is) grandparents -- poor and alienated from a state that sees them as valueless.

CAFFE is Citizen Action for Free and Fair Elections, and it seeks to monitor the electoral process in the hope of making it cleaner. That's an aim which might be achieved, since the political parties have (with some reluctance) signed on to it. When I was last in Jamaica, in 2003, I attended a conference at the Wyndham (I keep wanting to write 'Sheraton') put on by the Carter Center and attended by an interesting assortment of public figures (including Trevor Munroe who called for enforcement of political ethics laws -- leading to Oliver Clarke expressing wonder that Trevor would advocate locking up politicians) on monitoring elections. The overall atmosphere was optimistic.

JFJ's website is http://www.jamaicansforjustice.org/