Dear Editor,

I read with great interest the article by David Mullings in the May 5th issue of the Sunday Observer — “A Grand Coalition for Jamaica” — and in support of his well considered and important article, offer my own comments.

Impartial observers agree that one of the main deterrents to the engine of national progress has been the inability of all elements of the country to contribute their skills peacefully — as opposed to aggressively — to the national good. This phenomenon is vividly demonstrated when, at the change of each democratically elected government, all talent belonging to the defeated party is replaced by a new cadre of political appointees.

This division, accepted and perpetuated by the leaders and followers of the People’s National Party and the Jamaica Labour Party, was consolidated at the time of Independence in 1962 and continues to this day. Not only did the rivalry continue but, because of the constant deterioration of Jamaica’s economy and social fabric since Independence, the competition benefiting supporters of the respective parties progressively led to the great divide we feel today; once expressed by a commentator to be the “division of spoils between warring political tribes”.

This view is based on my observation of the situation prior to, and since Independence. It is, again in my view, based on the historical and successful colonial concept using the method of dividing and conquering — a method of colonial control since Biblical times — and was a highly successful system employed by the British Colonial Office in regard to the then Empire moreso in the case of Jamaica.

This strategy was demonstrated when King George VI invited the late Norman MAnley to tea at Buckingham Palace while at the same time allowing his political rival Alexander Bustamante to bare his chest in the face of colonial authority at the head of a downtown Kingston demonstration. This firmly established the deep-rooted and often violent rivalry between the two nascent political parties.

Jamaica is now at an important crossroads in terms of national survival; an opportunity which may not occur again anytime soon. I refer to the recently negotiated agreement with the International Monetary Fund and its subsidiaries. This agreement contained a host of regulatory conditions and benchmark stages for implementation; most of which have been described as “strong medicine”. Of interest is the fact that all of the painfully laborious negotiations and agreements were conducted exclusively by the finance minister and his team, with only negative or critical input from the Opposition.

Apart from a sense of relief now that the agreement is concluded, the nation is aware that our future — and that of our children and grandchildren — depends on our ability to reconstruct our economy (together with all other social implications) within the timetable established by the IMF.

This, I would suggest, will be impossible without the contributions of all members of Jamaican society — not only the party in power, but all citizens having something, however small, to contribute. This will not happen under the present order of party politics, but the risk of inactivity is too great for us to continue down the slippery slope of “divide and conquer”.

Therefore, I suggest that the eminent proposal of David Mullings —  providing we all recognise the crucial importance of national success — is a temporary suspension of party politics; perhaps for a period of five or seven years — sufficient time to put our train of recovery back on track. I support the formation of a Coalition Government for this country; a new government devoid of political rivalry and self-destruction, one comprised of the best brains, talent and capability that is currently available.

Additionally, in terms of the Senate, since there will no longer be any need for political appointees, the Chamber should be converted into a national think tank — a place where persons of experience and intellect may convene to debate the philosophy of progress in terms of national development, for them to be able to so advise the legislators in the other House. An analogous undertaking to such a system would be the agreement not to diminish any civil liberties or basic freedoms, eg speech or movement.

The concept is not new. When Britain was threatened by Germany at the beginning of WWII, they realised that party politics could no longer serve them in their hour of need. They enlisted the services of Winston Churchill, who led his mixed team to ultimate victory. After the coalition had done its job, they were elected out of power and a new opposition government was elected in its stead.

My suggestion, therefore, is that we must immediately take the opportunity presented to us to effect a change in the way we run our country. We are at war, not as the English were in 1940, but in a situation just as hazardous; let us all join in our fight for national survival. It really is Now or Never!

M J Stoppi, CD

Kingston