Boyne
Ian Boyne, Contributor
DESPITE the Government's high-profile plans for the celebration of Jamaica's 40th Independence anniversary, 53 per cent of the people say Jamaica would have been better off under British rule, a crushing psychological blow to nationalists and a stinging indictment on the Jamaican political project.
But while there has been much public discussion on that statistic, the more disturbing fact to the pro-independence people must be the revelation that only 15 per cent of the people say Jamaica would be worse off under British rule - three times less than those who are certain we would be better off.
We should carefully assess the implications of this poll. Already, Mark Wignall has said that Opposition Leader Edward Seaga has taken the wrong cue from it, and sees it as an indication that the people are fed up with the years of stagnant economic growth under the PNP administration.
FAILED LEADERSHIP
But says Wignall in a recent column: "I have news for the JLP. The people were, in essence, saying that successive PNP and JLP administrations have failed to provide leadership which should have given us the standard of living even close to that promised to us in 1962".
"John Maxwell told Cliff Hughes on Nationwide last Wednesday that P.J. Patterson and Edward Seaga were the two greatest obstacles to the development of Jamaica and that if we got rid of both of them, many of our problems would be solved. Maxwell bemoaned the alleged ignorance of the people in expressing such unprogressive preference for colonialism, but felt the failure of political leadership has led to this.
Interestingly, it was not the failure to provide jobs and to improve the economy which constituted the number one factor leading to the view that we would be better off under British rule. It was our failure to combat crime and the injustice of the so-called justice system.
In other words, our failure at the rule of law has dampened Jamaicans' enthusiasm for our independence. The poll is fully in concert with the findings of the Human Development Report 2002 released by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) last Wednesday. The Report gave Jamaica low marks on law and order and in combating corruption.
Any objective analysis of the Jamaican political system over the last 40 years cannot fail to note the link between politics and criminality. Not only have successive Governments failed to contain crime to acceptably low levels, but the parties, which brought them to power have given birth and nurtured the beast which now haunts us.
Wilmot Perkins might be guilty of exaggerating a number of things, but his ad nauseam preaching on the responsibility that our two main political parties bear for the level of divisiveness, bitterness and crime in our country cannot be dismissed.
There is no getting around the fact that the Jamaican people's identifying crime and weaknesses in the justice system as the primary reasons why we would be better off under British rule is connected with the sordid tribalist history of our political parties in the post-Independence period.
The fight for scarce benefits and spoils, the role of political patronage, political victimisation and corruption have been endemic to our political system. The two main political parties have a lot of confessing and repenting to do.
The 40th year of our Independence would be a good time to start. Contrition before celebration would be a good thing, but we should not hold our breaths. The fact that such a large percentage of the Jamaican electorate is uncommitted politically and is disillusioned with politics is not unconnected with the post-Independence behaviour of the PNP and the JLP.
But there is a tendency to move from one extreme to the other. While there are party hacks on both sides who are quick to defend their tribe and to whitewash the history of political manipulation of poor, oppressed people, there are equally those who say that nothing has really been achieved since Independence and that all politicians are thieves who just want to line their pockets. Jamaicans are generally impatient of serious thought and our intelligentsia suffers from the same malaise.
There is an either-or, black-and-white mentality that plagues us and robs us of balanced thinking. We do an injustice to history - and the truth - when we assert that out post-Independence politicians have been all rogues and bandits and have hardly contributed anything to national development.
Mark Wignall echoes public sentiment but is irresponsible (not to mention empirically groundless) when he wrote on Thursday that: " There is no such thing as the altruistic politician: One who will give because to give is good and it fills a human need. Many of our home-grown (politicians) seem to have other objectives having to do with fattening their bank accounts".
MESSIANIC COMPLEX
Eddie Seaga is certainly not the humblest of persons and he does have a Messianic Complex. But try as you might to tarnish him because of his tax liabilities and his failed Spring Plains project, you cannot come across as responsible with the facts if you suggest that he is in politics to line his pocket and enrich himself.
To suggest also that he is simply the builder of a garrison in Tivoli Gardens and to ignore his enormous contribution to national development is to abhor the truth. Eddie Seaga has been one of the most accomplished builders of national institutions in the entire developing world. His contribution to the promotion of Jamaican culture, including our folk religions, excels that of all the "born-ya" politicians.
P.J. Patterson also successfully escapes any personal culpability with regard to corruption. That both Seaga and Patterson have been involved in parties which have fostered and benefited from corruption is undeniable.
That they have participated in a political system which has corruptly used power is clear to see. But there is no objective evidence that P.J. Patterson is in politics to line his pocket. Even his critic Cliff Hughes had to sharply correct John Maxwell last week when Maxwell suggested that Patterson is not interested in giving a voice to the Jamaican people.
Cliff reminded him about the expansion in the media landscape under Patterson and the fact that we have never been freer to criticise the Prime Minister without repercussions.
P.J. Patterson is genuinely interested in and has contributed significantly to the development of the Jamaican people. His non-confrontational, consultative style of leadership and ability to give-and-take has stood this country in good stead.
We do a tremendous disservice to our people as commentators when we give them the impression that we have inherited the worst leaders in the world over the last 40 years.
Even a cursory understanding of global politics reveals that the calibre and integrity of the men who have served us as Prime Ministers since Independence is much higher than what has existed in many Third World states-and is above some of those who have served the developed countries, too.
Besides, our leaders have been genuinely interested in people development and the upliftment of ordinary people and have not been as captive to special interests and the elites as have many Third World leaders.
A GLOBAL CONTEXT
We owe it to our people to put our development in a global context. Let's admit the embarrassing truths of our political tribalism, the link between politics and criminality (which our politicians have yet to come clean with us about, in contradistinction to Bruce Golding), the corrupt use of resources to further partisan ends etc. But the Human Development Report did give us high marks for our respect for civil liberties, press freedom and democracy.
We are ahead of many countries in this regard, including developed countries. We are free to cuss P.J. and to slander both P.J. and Seaga daily and get away with it. Our press attacks them unfairly on a regular basis. And we continue to write and broadcast.
The poll showing the majority saying Jamaica would be better off under British rule is as much if not more an indictment on Jamaicans as it is of our political leaders.
If you listen to people like John Maxwell and other progressives from the 1970s talk about independence and the evils of British colonialism - the racism, the social exclusion, the limited opportunities for the advancement of black people - you will see a sharp conflict of visions with the majority.
JAMAICANS DON'T CARE ONE HOOT
Jamaicans don't care one hoot about who governs them as long as money is "jingling in their pockets" so to speak, and they can afford to have their North American lifestyle.
They like go to America and Britain, these same imperialist-colonialist states, and will suffer indignities as long as they can get U.S. dollars and British pounds to convert and come back home to profile and give their families a better standard of living.
They love Cayman, which is not independent. Jamaicans' system of values puts money at the very top. Everything comes down to money. They will sell their best friends, even family members for money and to advance their own interests.
This rugged individualism, this atomistic, hedonistic view of life is partially what accounts for the fact that they underplay the genuine, far-reaching changes which have been made politically and socially over the last 40 years.
I put it to you that even if we had the best law and order and justice system in the world and the people were not having their North American lifestyle, they would still be disdainful of the gains of Independence. Jamaicans at the end of our 40 years of Independence are no longer excited about ideology or ideas - whether black power, Back-to-Africa, socialism or even JLP-style nationalism. They are excited about money and material advancement. Bling bling, status, profiing. Getting ahead.
But then perhaps it comes back to the failure of political leadership. For the fact that over 60 % of the people are not excited about the programmes of either of the PNP or JLP is perhaps the greatest indictment on those parties.
Neither of these parties has a vision an ideology - which can galvanise or energise the people. The PNP, which used to boast of itself as the party of vision, is mired in a pragmatism which is uninspiring. Even when it talks about achievements in social policy it is not in the context of a distinct set of ideas.
The JLP has never claimed to have any respect for ideology or philosophy. "Philosophy cyaan plant yam", its founder Alexander Bustamante said famously.
It is no wonder that having failed to provide enough "yam" in the last 40 years, that the people have judged their entire post-Independence political project to be a failure. The parties' end-of-ideology ideology has come back to haunt them.
