IF anyone missed the point of Audley Shaw’s historic challenge to the sitting leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), please see Clovis’s cartoon originally published in the Daily Observer, November 11, 2013: “Thank you man a yard for waking up democracy.” Profound!

Is democracy asleep in the JLP? Or is it a long way from home? The 2013 challenge to party leader Andrew Holness was not about “bad mind” and “grudgeful”, it was about establishing the first principle of a political party in what is called a democracy. And that was about having, for the first time in 70 years, the popular election by delegates, the leader of the JLP. From its inception, the JLP has been controlled by the “One Don” style of leadership. The JLP and its members should be grateful for that event. It welcomed the JLP into a journey of becoming a modern political party.

As I observed the resistance from Holness and his backers to Shaw’s challenge, I noted that, on the ground, the deep anti-democratic spirit was overwhelming. Of course this same “spirit” is prevalent in Jamaica, and probably Shaw should continue his mission to stir it up; to stir up democracy into the thinking of the lower class people in Jamaica.

It is important to note the history of the circumstances leading to the formation of the JLP. Also important is the fact that there was no history of democracy in Jamaica before Independence; and certainly we have not done much, after Independence, to change that tradition in real terms. I speak of democracy not only in terms of political institutions, but also in terms of free speech, the right to express free thinking, inspiring contention of ideas. It was not the loyalty to what was wrong or unreasonable that brought down, in a limited way, colonialism and the plantation society in Jamaica during 1938. It was the challenge of “new awareness”, the challenge of the existing power relations that led to change. This challenge by Shaw, and the ‘treacherous’ responses to his act, remind us that Jamaica is a long way from home in terms of being a democratic society.

The lack of appreciation for this challenge, in terms of its historical significance, was a loud display during the campaign and even to the victorious platform. On both sides, there was a lack of attention paid to the party as a democratic and responsible political organisation looking at deeper democratic penetration. The talk was mostly about “unity”. For all I am concerned, the JLP has been a divided political organisation for most of its history; the result of its lack of democratic spirit. Therefore, the emphasis should have been, and now ought to be, to continue the processes leading to a deepening of democracy in that political party. The party and its leadership may want to look at other areas where democratic qualities may require improvement. They may also want to look at delegate selection process and efficient and transparent ways in managing delegate records — Clovis, again, in his cartoon published in the Observer on Tuesday, November 5, 2013 reflects a public opinion of the delegates’ list of the JLP. He illustrates the starting line of the race with Holness and Shaw; a perplexed Shaw looking at the cannon-ball chained to his left leg with the inscription “Delegates’ List”. Something appeared to be “dirty” about the delegates’ list used. Shaw had long expressed concern about this matter. Party members should feel confident and comfortable about the process to select and manage delegates’ record.

The last time the JLP went for youth was in 1967. The history leading up to that ‘selection’ of the ‘youth’ prime minister was interesting. In 1966, Donald Sangster swamped Robert Lightbourne eight to three for first deputy leader of the JLP. Sangster received 803 delegates’ votes to Lightbourne 303. Sangster became prime minster in 1967 and died shortly afterwards. Rumour had it that Sir Clifford Campbell, the first native governor general, wanted to name Lightbourne as prime minister. That was opposed, I understand, and the party leadership organised for the JLP members of Parliament to select the new party leader and prime minister. Shearer won by one vote after a selection process. There was no good news to send home about that youth Prime Minister. The question lingers: what would the JLP and Jamaica look like if Lightbourne had become leader in 1967? Probably Michael Manley would not have emerged at that time. It was the People’s National Party (PNP) that benefited from that youth “thrust” in 1967. It inspired the youth in the PNP to catapult Michael Manley into the centre of the political life of Jamaica. Youth should never be that single criterion for political leadership selection.

Both political parties have not done well in educating their members. There is an exception. That exception was Michael Manley. As a political leader he did extremely well in educating the public at large as well as members of his party. The new political leader, the transformative leader, is that visionary who commands the attention of those at large to share the vision. The issue is more than age. It goes beyond the grooming of “Labourites” or “Comrades”. Partisan tribalism is one of the greatest forces against democracy. Indeed, it is the greatest force against unity in Jamaica. What is required, above all things, is the unity of the Jamaican people. Only then will political groups be united. The deepening of democracy, therefore, will require public education, on one level, and effective education in the formal sphere preparing students for responsible and democratic citizenship. Transforming party institutions alone is just a part of the process. As Clovis illustrates, a “waking up” not just for the JLP but for all of Jamaica. It will be interesting to see how the PNP will respond to this most historic event in the JLP.

Louis EA Moyston

thearchives01@yahoo.com