Following his announcement last week of a timetable for retirement from the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party, Opposition Leader Edward Seaga spoke with Earl Moxam about that decision and some of the implications. Part II was published in yesterday's Sunday Gleaner. Below we publish the conclusion.
EM: There's a parallel between yourself and Norman Manley, in that both of you were leader of your respective party for 30 years, and in both instances, head of Government for less than 10 years.
ES: And both of us lost five elections.
EM: But at the end of his career, I got the impression that Norman Manley felt somewhat disillusioned and disappointed with how things went for him, and to a certain extent, where he felt the country might have gone, had he been given more time at the helm. Do you share any of those feelings?
ES: Yes, I would have to say so, because my mind is still brimming with plans that could be introduced that could have very dramatic effects on Jamaica's future. Some of these are already in the manifesto which I wrote for the party. But there are other things that have come up even since then that could make a difference to Jamaica's future and I regret that I haven't had the chance to do the best that I could do for Jamaica. It's only natural; it's only human that there would be regret about that.
EM: Is there any of those prime development goals that you would like to highlight?
ES: Well, there's no question about the fact that the education programme has been all but abandoned by the PNP. That would have been one of our top priorities. We laid out a platform of 42 items for the education programme. I certainly would not have proceeded with the CCJ (Caribbean Court of Justice) and that would have been a plus for us because it would have continued to leave us in the hands of a strong justice system at the appeal level. The economy would have been shifted to a different model, which I outlined in this year's budget speech, of a fixed exchange rate, which would, very dramatically, in a matter of months, reshape the economic future of the country. Now those are only three.
EM: What would you say are some of the high points of your career, those things that you are most satisfied about having accomplished?
ES: I would have to identify as number one the fact that we were able to turn the entire country around from the path on which it had embarked in the 1970s based on the policies and programmes of the PNP, which led it to become a closed-society, based on a socialist society. We turned that around back to the type of ideological system that we have known and with which the country was comfortable, which relied upon an open society, with the market place being the driving force and rewarding private initiative. It had an impact on the country and not just at an institutional level or a segment of the country; it was a redirection of history, and that has to be what I consider my crowning achievement.
EM: Is there any major mistake, perhaps a decision that you made, which, in hindsight, you have regretted?
ES: I think that in inter-personal relations, which is not really my strongest point, that I could have made some mistakes along that line in the 1990s which, had they not occurred, may have resulted in an easier passage for the party. But going into details now would involve name calling which I don't want to do.
EM: Over the period of your leadership of the JLP you have had two main rivals in Jamaica's politics, Michael Manley and P.J Patterson. Can you compare the two men and how you related to them?
ES: Well, they are very different people. Manley was very much an impulsive type of person with strong feelings and definite views. But he was not a man of original views; he accepted the whole socialist ideology as a platform for Jamaica and unfortunately that didn't suit the Jamaican psyche. Patterson doesn't have any of that complexity; he doesnt think in those terms. He's a very practical sort of politician. He knows that to win an election you must have your organisation in place; you must have your money in place; you must have your PR programme in place and so on. And his whole approach has been towards retaining state power; not causing the country to soar to any ideological hype or even to transform the country based on the new approaches of globalisation and so on. So one is a very practical person; the other one was more emotionally bent with objectives that were more far-reaching but not practical.
EM: When Michael Manley retired in 1992, in that final session in Parliament in which his colleagues bade him farewell you were quite generous to him in your comments. Then, at his funeral, a few years later, many people remarked at that little salute you gave him at his graveside. Yet, you were bitter rivals in the 1970s. Many people see that as a complex relationship. How do you see it?
ES: Well, we were bitter rivals because, then, what he stood for and what I stood for were poles apart. And so the intensity of our differences caused the bitterness. After he recognized that socialism was a failure and adopted the same ideological framework that we held there was no longer any room for bitterness; just for differences. And so I got to know him better at that time, and
I've always said that he was a most charming person to engage in conversation, and I'm quite sure those who knew him better would have found him even more interesting. But I don't retain bitterness, as I've had to say in other circumstances, and the bitterness had worn away and I just looked at him as a rival. And I have many rivals, even in the present setup in and out
of my party, and in the PNP and other areas. And I'm quite friendly with a number of them. It's surprising how many people from the PNP have contacted me, at the highest levels, concerning my decision; not expressing any political position, but just saying how much they appreciated what I had done and that they're sorry I have taken the decision (to retire).
EM: And so your relationship with Mr. Patterson has mellowed over the years as well?
ES: Absolutely! Although I still have the deepest resentment for what took place in west Kingston in July 2001, which resulted in 25 humble persons being killed. And I still hold that against him, but our relationship goes beyond that.
EM: How much of the responsibility for that incident would you place on him directly?
ES: As head of the country, nothing like that could have taken place unless he knew it was happening.
EM: As you look to the future, can you articulate your fears and hopes for Jamaica?
ES: Well, my fear for Jamaica is that things are going on much the way that they have; that although there will be a number of good projects coming on stream, you're not going to get the full benefit of those projects in terms of creation of economic growth and employment because they won't trickle down, or if they do, it will be at a price that will make the benefits rather meaningless. High inflation will accompany what happens and rob you of some of the benefits of the trickle down. And, at any rate, trickle down is not the most efficient strategy. So, while things might now go on exactly as they would have been in the 1990s the improvement is not going to be as much as others would imagine, to a large extent because they don't understand the market system and the people are not going to get the benefits that they should. My hope is that we can remove the inappropriate policies that have caused all of this, and that we unleash the dynamic forces within the society and can make genuine progress, performance and growth.
