Ian Boyne, ContributorIt is an unwritten journalistic convention that the journalist refrains from eulogising those in power. But there are times when the actions and words of those in power are so compelling and irresistible that the journalist must yield to the temptation. P.J. Patterson's victory speech on Wednesday night at his party headquarters provides such an occasion.
Patterson is anything but a characteristically moving speaker. On Wednesday night he brought this cerebral journalist to an emotional pitch by striking the right chord at the right moment. The cynics and Patterson-haters can continue to pour scorn and ridicule on his speech; they can dig up past speeches to prove that he has said some of those things before and that they are just empty, meaningless words, hypocritically mouthed. But I believe that P.J. Patterson touched large numbers of Jamaicans who are not his fanatical supporters; rational, thinking people of goodwill who understand the dynamics of leadership and the importance of the right words at the right time.
It is interesting to hear the disingenuous arguments of those who are quick to dismiss the words of Patterson on Wednesday night. It's just words, they protest. We are not that gullible to take them seriously. Yet if Patterson had uttered the wrong words, had displayed arrogance in speech at his unprecedented third-term victory; had he bashed the Opposition and talked of "burying Seaga once and for all'; had he said that the people have spoken clearly for the black man over the non-born ya leader; had he said that his opponents must now shut up and his media critics had been dealt a severe, humiliating rejection despite their hours of propaganda against him daily; had Patterson said all these things, then we would hear how important words really are! But we should not detain ourselves with the hopelessly cynical or those laden with the crushing burden of venom and malice. P.J. Patterson demonstrated the calibre of leader he really is and why so many persons wanted him to lead them yet again.
UNITY
There is nothing more important at this time than to unify the country; to inspire the Jamaican people toward a common vision and set of goals and to inculcate a spirit of peace, camaraderie and harmony. I am convinced P.J. Patterson has the moral qualities, personality strengths, humility, dignity and graciousness to lead that charge. His banning of celebratory motorcades and burials in the face of an historic, highly significant fourth-term victory is a demonstration of remarkable leadership and maturity. Don't dismiss too lightly these symbolic gestures. They are critically important. If you doubt it, think about their opposites. Think about the effect of an arrogant, chest- beating, mocking, provocative speech at this time of a close victory.
Patterson's post-victory press conference on Thursday was also a shining example of humility, gracefulness, maturity and mental sharpness. He stressed his theme of unity and re-extended his invitation to meet with the Opposition Leader once a month. He again emphasised the necessity of working with the Opposition and all the sectors and interest groups, stressing that no one party, group or person can move Jamaica forward. With all the criticisms of Patterson, this country has not calculated - because it is not empirically testable - the value of having a leader who is non-confrontational, conciliatory, and deliberative and who has a cool head. I said in previous columns that Edward Seaga has a lot to learn from P.J. Patterson. Even ahead of my full-scale analysis of the election results next week, I will say succinctly that this election has been won and lost largely on the issue of leadership, credibility and trust. It was not about economics or crime or the other admittedly important things to the elecorate. If it were solely on that, the JLP would be in power.
P.J. Patterson must know that those of us willing to take him at his word will be watching his actions very closely. His cynics and critics more so. The finest legacy P.J. Patterson can leave this country is not highways, land for the poor, cellular phones or macroeconomic achievements. It is to unify this tribalistic, deeply fractious country, which has an appallingly low level of social capital. Happily, Mr. Patterson has signalled that he will be resuscitating his values and attitudes campaign - which he should never have soft-pedaled, despite the cynics.
SOCIAL COHESION
Let's get one thing clear: We won't achieve sustained economic growth, higher national productivity, increased exports, and job creation if we don't achieve social cohesiveness; if people don't learn to form strategic alliances, to develop win-win positions, to give and take, to show respect for one another and to internalise a spirit of tolerance. We quarrel, cuss and fight too easily. We are addicted to bad-mouthing people and finding fault. And we have elevated bad-mindedness and mean-spiritedness to the level of national culture. The tribalistic spirit is not limited to Tivoli or Jungle. It is also deadly in the intelligentsia.
The Patterson speech also had some other highly important elements aside from the commendable stress on unity and the demonstration of a generosity of spirit. Missed by the commentators and the press, not unexpectedly, were the Patterson references to the social agenda and the importance of working to uplift the poor and marginalised. This rhetoric from the PNP has not been as prominent as it was historically in the 1970s - and interestingly has been taken over by Eddie Seaga - but Patterson has served notice that he wants to recapture it. Progressive people in the Party like Paul Burke should not have an Herculean task to get the party to focus more on the social agenda and the interests of the marginalised and the underclasses because Patterson himself has signalled that he will take this on. This is most significant and let me be the first to offer the cheers for this.
One of the things which the critics of the traditional parties have underestimated is the ability of the PNP and the JLP to renew and reinvent themselves. I have said before that the third parties have proven to be an absolute waste of time and their disastrous performance in the recent polls has again confirmed this. The two parties have made them largely irrelevant for they have increasingly been taking on the agenda of the third parties and addressing them. Golding has wisely found his way back home in a winnable party and now stand a very good chance of being Prime Minister in five years.
The Patterson victory speech indicates that some other crucial matters will be taken up. For too long the PNP had seemed ashamed of its working class advocacy and was merely presenting itself as a pragmatic party whose neo-liberal policies were working. Never mind that these policies have not been producing jobs for the masses and were powerless to halt the retrenchment of workers in several sectors. Patterson also, very significantly, talked about a role for Jamaica in speaking up for the developing world and working closely with CARICOM. Patterson, in his final years in political office, is going for the best of the Michael Manley legacy (one must not forget, too, his own enormous role as a brilliant negotiator for the ACP and Group of 77 countries).
SEAGA'S CAMPAIGN
And our media have been too obsessed with the sensational to notice that Seaga's rhetoric has shifted to the left - which is where it started. Seaga has lost the elections but he has conducted an honourable, decent, dignified and impressive campaign. Seaga's campaign was issues-oriented. His emphasis was not simply about corruption, crime, the economic crisis or the wickedness of P.J. Patterson. Seaga articulated a vision for this country which is a vision the country desperately needs: A vision of a country where the poor and marginalised have equal access to a good and decent way of life, to justice, to quality education to good housing, medical care etc. A vision of a Jamaica where the social and class barriers are broken down; where uptown and downtown better understand each other and express mutual respect; where the have-nots are raised up and empowered; where the state works in the interest of the poor and oppressed rather than in the interest of the ruling class.
Not since Michael Manley has a political leader so forcefully articulated the interests of the marginalised on the campaign trail. Yes, Patterson talked about the poor and social achievements but never in the coherent philosophical framework that Edward Seaga did in this campaign. The PNP has been frightened away from its rhetorical advocacy of the interests of the marginalised, for strategic reasons, deathly afraid that the capitalist class will remind them of the '70s and punish them. Seaga has never cared too much about other people's opinions when he feels deeply on a subject. I see Patterson now rightly coming back to reclaim this heritage. And well he should, now that he has gained the confidence of the capitalist class.
The anti-Seaga forces will be very active with their campaign in the next few weeks and months if Seaga does not yield to them. I will engage them in a bit of dialogue in my column next week. But for now, just a few questions. To my esteemed colleague Anthony Abrahams and others who feel Seaga must go now I ask: Is it better for the JLP that Seaga pack his bag now and leave the party in this "night of long knives?" Is it not better for Seaga, still the most popular leader among Labourites, to stay on, anoint Golding as leader - the person who would be most acceptable to the moneyed classes, rather than leave the party to self - destruct through division? Was it not this same "arrogant, implacable, irrational" Seaga who yielded to pressure to accept Golding, whose re-entry resulted in a stronger Opposition today? What does this do to the theory that Seaga yields to nothing and no one?
Could it be possible - just possible - that the dissidents in the JLP who washed their dirty linen in public and made us all see how wicked and dictatorial Seaga really was, are at least partly responsible for the fact that so many of us don't like or trust him? And for 40 years of unstinting service to the JLP, with many undeniable achievements under his belt, including the most humiliating defeat to the PNP in 1980, is this the way to say goodbye to this man? Do we have to humiliate him and crucify him? Can't we at least give him a decent departure and prove that the Labour party is gracious and manifests the type of spirit and demeanour that people love about P.J. Patterson and voted for? How a party treats its leader - a human being with faults - says a lot about that party. What message does the JLP want to send at this time?
