Dr. Peter Phillips, Contributor

Norman Manley, Leader of the Opposition and president of the People's National Party, leading the demonstration down King Street, downtown Kingston, after addressing a crowd at South Parade in this June 1968 file photo.

My generation growing up in the immediate post-Independence years was never able to experience first hand the measure of the man. He was, of course, a looming presence in the society, a man of almost mythic proportions.

In Norman Manley's case, however, the passage of time and more sober reflection have not reduced the stature of the man. On the contrary, a more comprehensive examination of the history of the period confirms the judgement of N.W. Manley as the critical individual influence shaping Jamaica's national movement as we moved to Independence. It was Manley, leading the People's National Party (PNP) who articulated and successfully laid claim to nationhood on behalf of the Jamaican people.

MANLEY AND THE NATIONAL MOVEMENT

As we all know, 1938 was the watershed year. The labourrebellion, protesting poor wages and working conditions, forced the confluence of all the currents of civic and political ferment. In this heady atmosphere, the PNP was formed that September. The central political demand was clear: self-government and nationhood.

Manley at the time put it thus:

"Either make up our minds to go back to Crown colony government and have nothing to do with our government at all; or have your voice and face the hard road of political organisation, facing the hard road of discipline, developing your own capacities, your own powers and leadership and your own people to the stage where they are capable of administering their own affairs." (Speech at the launch of the PNP.)

The substance of Manley's legacy, however, transcends the mere demand for nationhood. Much more than that, he was able by virtue of his legendary self-discipline, order and hard work to elaborate the essentials of his vision of nationhood and to lay the foundation, erect the institutional architecture of the political and administrative arrangement. In addition, he helped define identities, loyalties and ideas that still today represent the essence of Jamaican nationhood.

THE CORE OF HIS LEGACY

What then constitutes the core of this legacy? On one level, there is the institutional legacy. Central to this of course is the PNP, and indeed, the two-party system itself to which Manley was deeply committed as an ideal (P. 47 Manley and the New Jamaica).

Beyond that, however, were a range of national institutions that gave substance to statehood, including Jamaica Welfare (later Social Development Commission), The Central Planning Unit (currently Planning Institute of Jamaica), the Bank of Jamaica, Agricultural Development Corporation, the Scientific Research Council, the Jamaica Broadcasting Corporation and Common Entrance [now GSAT], to name just a few of the currently existing national institutions that had their origins in N.W Manley's vision and efforts, and which for the most part were establishedduring the PNP's first term in office between 1955 and 1959.

The second and perhaps more critical aspect of the national movement's inheritance from Manley is the philosophical or ideological legacy. From the vantage point of political philosophy, Manley's commitments centred upon nationhood (nationalism), democracy and egalitarianism and the rule of law. These were the continuously intertwined principles that guided his political action, both at the level of policy when in Government, and at the level of Party political action.

It was a determined and irrevocable demand for nationhood, and Manley was the champion, the demand for responsible government and for (so called dominion status), Independence, first as part of a West Indian Federation, or as it turned out after his loss in the referendum on the federation, as a separate island nation.

fundamental matters

When in government, Manley consulted regularly with the Opposition on all fundamental matters; and when in Opposition, Manley placed primacy on the national interest to set the limits on the party's and his role. Violence had no place in his vision of democratic practice:

"I will be no party to inciting people to physical violence as a means of progress in this country. I am not going to have my people murdered by hot words that don't mean a damn thing. If you want leadership that is going to incite people to violence, count me out and I will go." [Nettleford p. 48]

Similarly, Manley's commitment to the principle of equality of opportunity and egalitarianism, which was embodied in his democratic socialist ideology, was rooted in a deep and instinctive humanism, which had at its root an empathy with the common man.

This probably had something to do with his upbringing as part of a struggling and largely impoverished property-holding middle-class forced into close interaction with the rural peasantry and workers. As Manley put it:

"I grew up as a bushman. I earned my pocket money cleaning pastures, and chipping logwood at standard rates. I would go out in the morning and share lunch with the workers, and if we were not looking for stray cattle, I would walk with them day and night".

So much for the mythology that has grown up about Manley and the elitist scion of the middle class.

His belief in the capacities of the ordinary people and in the need to unlock their potential for self-improvement and national development guided his policy goals throughout his political involvement. This was at the heart of his efforts in relation to community development and was the instinct which underpinned his determination to reform the country's educational system.

RULE OF LAW AND RIGHTS OF THE INDIVIDUAL

To my mind, however, another dimension of the Manley philosophical outlook bears special mention - that is his consti-tutionalist outlook and his commitment to the rule of law and the rights of the individual. Manley had of course been a student of British jurisprudence and one of its most renowned advocates of the period.

It is not surprising, therefore, that he was ardently devoted to the very tenets of law and the system of government in which it was embedded.

Manley was to personally chair the select committee of the parliament which considered the Independence constitution and personally helped draft much of it. He was most concerned that the constitution embody the basic protections for the fundamental rights and freedoms that were intrinsic to the Jamaican reality.

In summary then, Manley, throughout his more than 30 years of active involvement in public life articulated a vision of an independent Jamaican nation, secure and confident in its appreciation of its national culture with a vibrant, competitive multiparty parliamentary democracy, rooted in the rule of law. The overarching objective: an egalitarian society offering equal opportunity to all.

ASSESSING THE LEGACY

Now almost 60 years after the social upheaval of 1938, and 45 years after Independence, it is appropriate to take stock of our progress as a people in implementing this vision. Of necessity, no definitive judgements can be arrived at here; and the basic research for such judgements still needs to be done, but some broad assessments can nevertheless be made.

No one would deny that perhaps the most definitive accomplishment of those of that era has been the successful consolidation of the Jamaican nation-state.

Since 1962, Jamaica has sustained a viable parliamentary democracy with regular and essentially peaceful transfers of governmental authority, and in a context where the basic civil and human rights of citizens have been preserved. No doubt there have been stresses and strains; political violence has intruded on election campaigns and there have been persistent complaints of extra-judicial enforcement by police and other state officials. Nonetheless, the basic structures and authority of the independent Jamaican state have remained intact.

The situation regarding the mission to create an egalitarian society and an essentially law-abiding society is less clear-cut. Certainly, the vast social differentials with respect to landed property which typified pre-1938 colonial Jamaica no longer obtain.

What is more, successive land-settlement and land divestment schemes over the past 50 years have consolidated and extended the stratum of small-scale landholders in both rural and urban Jamaica. Nevertheless, substantial inequalities endure.

We should not make this obscure the fact that phenomenal gains have been made in some aspects of the quality of life of the majority of the population. Life expectancy has been extended and now approaches the levels of the most developed countries.

With respect to educational services, the record is equally complicated. The introduction of a free-place system by the PNP administration started a process of broadening access to the educational system for those social classes that had been previously excluded from what had been till then an elitist system ofsecondary education.

Yet for all that, the performance of the educational system is abysmal. As starkly stated by the Task Force on Educational Reform which reported in 2004:"Thirty per cent of primary- school leavers were illiterate, and only about 20 per cent of secondary graduates had the requisite qualification for meaningful employment and/or entry to post-secondary programmes."

Improved standards have not resulted from increased access. This failure of the educational transformation envisaged represented the set back for Manley's vision of a more egalitarian and civilised society.

Far from being the "greatest uniting force" in the country giving "opportunity to all citizens of the land" as he expected (Nettleford, P. 284-5), the educational system still leaves too many languishing in ignorance, and unable to make effective contributions to economic growth and development in an increasingly knowledge-driven and globalised world economy.

Disappointments

It is with respect to the issue of the rule of law, however, that the disappointments to the Manley legacy are most palpable. The overarching constitutional order remains intact and in many respects the formal rights and protections available to the individual have been extended by the creation of offices such as the Ombudsman and Public Defender which offer the prospect of redress against actions of the State.

Nevertheless, increases in the level of crime and particularly violent crime, and general public disorder severely curtail the enjoyment of any rights including the right to life of the population.

Interestingly, the problem of crime, violence and public order figured hardly, if at all, in the early discussions of social reform during the decolonisation process. This is perhaps not surprising. For one thing, law and order had always been perceived by the nationalist movement as the pre-occupation, (and a negative pre-occupation) of Colonial authority.

Moreover, one could plausibly surmise thatthe basic assumption of the early nationalists was that social reform in education and the development of the economy would inevitably lead to greater social integration and eliminate any threats to society posed by crime and social disorder.

Social Disorder

As it turned out, the early pre- and post-Independence years were marked by persistent social disorder, and by mounting criminal violence.

Five years after Independence, the first state of emergency was to be declared in West Kingston as political violence involving the gun, placed its indelible imprint on that community. A subsequent islandwide state of emergency was to be declared in 1976 as political violence intensified and spread across the island.

From the 1980s onwards, the intensification of globalisation and the emergence of a global market in narcotics saw the transformation of itinerant groupings of politically affiliated "bad-men" into full-fledged international crime organisations rooted in the export and transhipment of ganja and cocaine.

Increasingly, in many mainly urban communities, small armies of young men armed with high-powered weapons marauded at will, repelling all but the most intensive efforts of the country's security forces to impose the rule of law. This more than anything threatened and threatens the very survival of the Jamaican state and by extension poses the possibility of the collapse of the entire Nationalist project originated by N.W. Manley and his colleagues.

This then is the challenge for our contemporary politics: How to restore the rule of law in its fullest and most profound sense. For, make no mistake about it, this is essential if the nationalist project is to survive. The elements of the solution are reasonably clear; some more easily accomplished then others.

First, it is the need to sustain the modernisation and reform of the security forces. In turn, this requires sustained, predictable and sufficient budgetary resources to acquire the necessary new technologiesand manpower. Also, it requires political understanding and the will to put in place the necessary legislative and administrative provisions to enable the identification, investigation, conviction and effective punishment of criminals.

Secondly we need the most massive national effort to consummate the education revolution started by N.W. Manley. There is no possibility of overcoming social alienation and the criminality which it breeds if 80 per cent of our secondary school leavers cannot meet the basic requirements for functioning in the world of work. This task is so urgent and the requirement for human and material resources so massive, that only the most comprehensive mobilisation of the country's national will can suffice to meet this challenge.

Political process

For that to happen, however, we will need a political process rooted in a vision of its unassailable integrity that can spearhead such a mobilisation, and help the country overcome the poisonous residue of political violence and tribalism and the paralysis of the national spirit which it brings.

Such an approach to the politics can learn much from the Manley legacy, its vision and its experiences. It is probably fitting to recall his view, offered in the speech he gave at the launch of the PNP in September 1938:

"All efforts will be wasted unless the masses of the people are steadily taken along the path in which they will feel more and more that this place is their home; that it is their destiny. They will then do more for it, more work, more effort, more thinking, more sacrifice, more discipline and more honesty than by any other measure you bring in this country."

It is the rekindling of this spirit that we need, if we are to successfully confront the challenges which face us.

Lecture delivered by Dr. the Hon. Peter Phillips held recently at the Norman Manley Law School.