Robert BuddanTHE LATE Premnier Norman Manley felt that budget debates should more broadly report on the state of the nation, not just the financial state of the country.
Prime Minister P.J. Patterson's Budget presentation on Tuesday was such a report. However, for the political scientist, there was special interest in his remarks about the state of Jamaican politics and the need for political leaders to take responsibility to change the old political culture.
Mr. Patterson reflected that while Michael Manley had desired greater policy continuity across administrations, his own further emphasis has been to build
consensus between parties and across the country.
He came to his political mission as Prime Minister recognising that, "The entire country had grown weary of the confrontation and hostility associated with politics." But as Mr. Golding said this year, one hand can't clap.
CONSENSUS AND LEADERSHIP
What is clear from Mr. Patterson's presentation is that mature political leadership is critical. From the 1970s to the 1980s, British political scientists had
identified policy discontinuities as a cause of continuing economic instability in Britain, and cited the Westminster system in which one-party majority governments tended to chop and change policies from administration to administration, as the source of the problem.
Michael Manley criticised the Westminster system on the same basis and begun to conceive of a system of government by consultation through social partnerships to ensure broader policy agreement and continuity. Mr. Patterson has emphasised consensus-building in step with the times.
Critics of parliamentary
democracy in the 1990s accept that policy continuity is now more assured because of the convergence between parties in the
post-ideological age. But they point out that democracy must go beyond majority decision-making to
consensus making consistent with the new politics of reconcilable national interest against the old politics of divided ideological interests.
Mr. Patterson recognised that this does not happen automatically since there is still the problem of party interest to deal with. Parties needed to accept a change in the culture of politics that would put national interest ahead of party interest.
He admitted that there were those on both sides of parliament who feared that consensus required parties to make too many concessions to the other side by which parties ran the risk of losing their identity.
Bruce Golding acknowledged this as well. At his inaugural speech as party leader in February, Mr. Golding debated with his
upporters saying, "Some of you, I know, get upset when you hear that we are meeting with the government. But listen to me. We operate a two-party democracy and the interests of the country sometimes demand that both sides
interact not in an adversarial way but in a deliberative way."
Mr. Patterson spoke in identical spirit in Parliament, saying that the two parties in Jamaica were entrenched and that there were some things that they had to agree to do together. He added further that it was important for
international diplomacy and trade that external players had
confidence in where Jamaica and its parties stood on certain issues.
CREATIVE DEMOCRACY
It is useful to reflect on Norman Manley's views of the two-party system in a democracy. Manley believed in the two-party system.
In his tribute to Sir Alexander in 1968 upon the latter's retirement, he said that 'Busta's' greatest
contribution to Jamaican democracy was forming the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP).
Manley then explained a rule of two-party democracy: Both parties must accept each other so that
neither will be forced to destroy the other. At the same time, the parties must differ in essentials since 'me-too-ism' would be death to the party system.
Speaking of the role of the Opposition in 1967, Manley said the Opposition must put forward a credible set of alternative policies, defend against the abuse of power, and only to 'oppose, oppose, oppose' as the ultimate defence.
Manley felt that to oppose just for the sake of opposing would not serve the national interest,
especially if credible alternatives did not exist.
Mr. Patterson has added a new dimension to the debate. For him the Opposition is to 'create, create, create'. It must be creative to win public confidence and it must try to be more creative than the government if it is to win power.
Norman Manley recognised that there will be both schools of thought coexisting in a party, those who just wanted to oppose and those that wanted to create a
credible alternative. The way out of the dilemma rested on positive leadership. It is the responsibility of leadership to make parties
creative organisations and to make politics into a creative two-party democracy.
Mr. Patterson recognised that a creative two-party democracy rested on a mature political culture. He asked that parliamentarians behave better and act with decorum if they are to win the respect of the public.
He lightheartedly chided Mr. Golding for his 'bangarang' speech and asked that politicians desist from using such charged phrases. He was more serious in insisting that the police will have the right to go after criminals wherever they are, an obvious
reference to Mr. Golding's
complaints about police action in Spanish Town.
LEADERSHIP CULTURE
Mr. Patterson saw signs of a maturing culture of leadership. He was pleased that the Vale Royal talks had resumed. Mr. Golding must be credited with this as well since he signalled his party's willingness to find a way of working together to unite this country behind common goals?
This bipartisanship is already showing success. Already, the Charter of Rights has been tabled in the House and the parties seemed to have agreed on the need to entrench the Electoral Commission in the constitution. The parties are talking about
education, crime, the CSME and the CCJ, campaign finance reform and energy. New provisions for social housing have come out of bipartisan talks.
Very importantly, Mr. Patterson has agreed with Mr. Golding that opposition parties must be included in deliberations on the progress and future of regionalism.
In truth, it has always been the intention to do so and this is why CARICOM Heads had agreed to establish a CARICOM Assembly of Parliamentarians, which would include opposition parliamentarians in the region. Mr. Patterson has now begun to make arrangements for a conference of ruling and opposition parties to discuss regionalism.
Mr. Golding had said, "We are committed to doing what is in the best interest of the country, not just the party." Hopefully, this means that his party will support building a new House of Parliament, one fit for a modern democracy.
The JLP also needs to publicly support the public sector Memorandum of Understanding and the Partnership for Progress. These, too, are broadly accepted and are for the good of the country.
Parliament was very receptive to Mr. Patterson's brand of politics. The congratulatory greetings from the JLP after his speech were as much personal as they were political.
Speaking of a meeting with the general secretary of the JLP on improving political conduct, Mr. Patterson reported, "I came away with a distinct sense that we were all seized of the importance of creating radical change in how we as political leaders are perceived."
Maybe we can put the bangarang episode aside and focus on the larger picture. Whether this is Mr. Patterson's final contribution to the state of the nation and the state of politics or not, it is probably the most important Budget
presentation he has made.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, Mona, UWI. You can send your comments to robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or infocus@gleanerjm.com
