Buddan
Robert Buddan, Contributor
THE WESTMINSTER model is more often discussed in relation to parliamentary and administrative institutions than to party systems and party politics. The JLP is the party most attached to the Westminster model so one would expect that the party would conform to its conventions. One of these conventions concerns party leadership succession.
REGULARITY OF LEADERSHIP CHANGES
Since 1990, the British Conservative Party (BCP) has changed leaders four times and has done so three times in the last five years since its most recent defeat in 1997. In those elections the British Labour Party (BLP) ended 18 consecutive years in opposition. Over those 18 years, it changed party leaders four times. The BLP and BCP together had eight different leaders between 1979 and 2001, that's about one new leader every three years.
In Jamaica by comparison, the PNP and JLP have had one change of leader in 28 years since Mr. Seaga became JLP leader in 1974. That change of leadership came, of course, in the PNP when Mr. Patterson succeeded Mr. Manley. The JLP has had no change even though it has been the party to have lost the most elections over the period and under one leader.
ELECTORAL LOSS
Resignation as party leader comes as quickly as one day after losing an election in Britain. In the most recent cases, John Major resigned as leader of the Conservative party one day after conceding defeat in 1997 and his successor, William Hague, similarly resigned a day after his party's loss in 2001. In both cases, the Conservative party had lost by landslides. But Hague resigned even though he had only lost one election, was just 40 years old (and was just 36 when he became party leader, then the youngest party leader in Britain in over 200 years). In Jamaica, Norman Manley offered to resign after losing his first elections in 1944 and Michael Manley did the same after losing his only elections in 1980. I have no knowledge that Bustamante, Shearer or Seaga ever did so, even though they lost two, one and five elections respectively. (Mr. Seaga might be forgiven for not stepping down in 1976 since he had only been leader for two years up to that time).
THE MODE OF SUCCESSION
Party succession in Britain depends more on contests between candidates than on hand-picked succession. In fact, John Major distanced himself from Thatcher's style and her insensitive brand of conservatism, and Hague distanced himself from Major. Tony Blair has carried through the change in the Labour party's image and philosophy that Neil Kinnock started, distancing himself from old Labour. Successors are better able to bring a new image and style to their parties when they become leaders on their own terms and in their own right and are often expected to do so.
Besides, the fact that party leaders resign as shortly as a day after losing an election means that they do not try to hang around to arrange succession (hand-picked or otherwise) as Mr. Seaga now claims he has to do. Paddy Ashdown of the Liberal party retired without indicating who he believed his successor should be even though he had announced he would be retiring two years before he did.
It is believed that Bustamante manufactured the parliamentary vote that gave Hugh Shearer the role of Prime Minister after Donald Sangster died in office; and that Mr. Seaga had been positioning Bruce Golding or Audley Shaw to succeed him. Although Michael Manley succeeded his father, he had to win a party vote against Vivian Blake. And P. J. Patterson, widely expected to succeed Michael Manley, had to have a run-off against Portia Simpson Miller. Both Norman and Michael Manley adopted neutral (though not necessarily impartial) roles in those elections. Mr. Patterson has gone on to confirm his leadership ability by winning three general elections and now adopts a neutral role over his own succession.
The last two Conservative party successions in Britain were settled by contests among sizeable numbers of candidates. In 2001, nominations were made on behalf of five candidates. But one newspaper had claimed that as many as 16 Conservative MPs had been named by their colleagues as possible successors. The greater numbers of MPs make it possible to have a larger pool from which to draw nominations. Although the BCP lost by a landslide in 2001, it still had 166 MPs in Parliament.
In Britain, one has to be an elected member of Parliament before he can qualify to be party leader. Michael Portillo had been the popular favourite to succeed John Major but lost his seat in the 1997 elections and so did not qualify. He was able to contest in 2001 after returning to Parliament in a by-election in 1999. Had this situation been the case in Jamaica, Michael Manley could not have been PNP leader between 1983 and 1989, the time the PNP was absent from Parliament having boycotted the 1983 elections. In fact, no one would qualify to be PNP leader then. This rule prevents parties from boycotting elections and Parliament. But it also disqualifies persons who are not MPs yet the party's best choice to lead.
In Jamaica, one can be party leader without being parliamentary leader of Opposition or Government. Norman Manley was an example of the first case (1944-49) and Bruce Golding could be an example for the JLP in the near future. One can also be leader of the parliamentary opposition (Hugh Shearer, 1972-1974) and leader of the parliamentary majority (Hugh Shearer, 1967-72 and Donald Sangster, 1967), without being party leader. Both were titular party leaders, first deputy leaders, in fact.
RULES OF SUCCESSION
In Britain the parliamentary members have a strong say in selecting a leader since candidates must be MPs and so would depend on their fellow MPs for support. In effect, any MP can announce his or her intention to contest for the leadership. The parliamentary members then eliminate by ballot, all but two contenders. These two then submit themselves to voting blocs of the party. The trade union bloc has traditionally commanded a strong bloc of votes for the BLP. The BLP therefore requires that candidates have strong support from within parliament and the trade union sector on the grounds that it is a party of labour in Parliament. Increasingly however, the party membership at large is getting more say in these elections for succession. In fact, the Conservative party changed its rules in 1998 and the election of its present leader, Iain Duncan Smith in 2001, was the first contest in which the party leadership was decided by the general membership of the party.
In Jamaica, bloc votes by trade unions, parliamentary members or other special interest groups do not normally matter much. The candidates for party leader are usually well-known to be those from the deputy leadership (JLP) or vice-presidential level (PNP) and are voted for by delegates from constituencies, the party executive, parliament and unions. In the JLP, however, the general endorsement of any deputy leader by the party membership is harder to obtain. Mr. Seaga had changed the party structure so that each deputy leader would be elected from one of the four party regions. Each is thus limited to his regional support base and cannot securely count on the general membership to become party leader.
This resembles a divide and rule strategy and means that the individual must rely on other factors, such as the anointing of the maximum leader himself, to obtain broader cross-regional support. The JLP leader can influence who becomes a deputy leader. Mr. Seaga threw his support behind Audley Shaw and against Pearnel Charles in their 1999 campaigns to that position. The BITU had backed Charles. It will be interesting to see how conventions and rules are applied or invented to influence Bruce Golding's chances. Golding will be the first candidate for leader who is not a Member of Parliament or party officer. His situation opens new territory for the JLP.
BEYOND CHANGING THE LEADER
Mere changes in party leaders do not make a party better. The BCP changed party leaders after 1997 and still lost in 2001 by a landslide. The BLP changed leaders three times from 1979 and still lost successive elections until 1997. On the other hand, the PNP retained Michael Manley after losing in 1980 and he went on to renew and unite the party.
Despite changing leaders, the BLP still suffered from divisions that kept it in opposition until its renewal. The BCP remained divided after 1997 and this contributed to its defeat in 2001. A new leader must be able to unite the party and bring renewal to the party at the same time. This is the challenge that faces the JLP and PNP in the near future, but especially the JLP.
Robert Buddan is a lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. rbuddan@uwimona.edu.jm
