Today’s Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), more than ever before, seems to be tumbling from one debilitating debacle to another. Doubt and distrust divide, the blame game flourishes, executive fingers point at each other, and the itch for internecine conflict spreads beneath thin skins and thick skulls. Worse, there appears to be no redeeming factor; and there is unlikely to be a lasting remedy until the party comes to grips with the root cause, which is the strong and stubborn tradition of autocratic leadership that has been a dominant characteristic from the inception, and for at least 60 years thereafter. This is a tale of autocrats and ‘autoclaps’.

Unlike the People’s National Party, which was well-planned and organised by the leading political thinkers of the time, the JLP was formed by the autocratic Alexander Bustamante with the prime objective of it being the political arm of the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union, which he had started before and was president-general for life. It conformed to all his wishes and the officers were is hand-picked lieutenants.

There was no debate, even when the party was to be named. When those close to him asked what should be the name he replied: “I do not know, but it must have two words in it: Jamaica and Labour.” That was that. And at the launching, there was not even a deputy leader. He later said he was thinking about it.

In a brief speech at the opening at Ward Theatre, Bustamante made it known that he did not advocate self-government right away, but instead: “I will seek the immediate improvement of the economic and social conditions of all classes of workers.” The party’s main objective then was, in his words: “I expect you to vote for every man and woman I put forward for the House of Representatives, and I expect you to help me to pack Labour members in that House…I am determined, with your help and co-operation, that this country will be run by the people, for the people, and by a government of the people.”

In 1944, when the general election was called, he continued to demonstrate his autocratic rule by personally approving each candidate; and when the question of campaign financing was raised he published his position:

“I noticed in an evening paper some days ago that this union’s finances will support the Jamaica Labour Party. I categorically deny that there is any such desire or intention on the part of the executive of the union. The members of the party will pay the small fee of six pence per year, but I myself intend to lodge in the name of the party out of my own cash which I brought from abroad, as many thousand pounds as the party may need to fill the House of Assembly with Labour members, in the interests of the workers, the small planters, the small taxpayers, and of the country as a whole. I will foot the whole bill in the interest of this island, no matter how many pounds the election may cost; but it must be understood that I will buy no votes. The money that I will deposit is to run the election but not to buy votes. I must get votes from the people on the merit of my past and present actions.”

Again, in 1960, when some executive members began suggesting that there should be “collective leadership instead of one-man rule”, Bustamante heard about it and frowned at the idea. A newspaper report mentioned his disfavour and he responded in a brief statement: “It was stated in The Gleaner that I will not accept ‘collective leadership’ as the method of operating the Jamaica Labour Party. This statement is completely true.” It was about this time that the election of officers was declared null and void and Busta given total control of the party until a set of officers more to his liking was put in place. This is how the Labour Party operated for the first 30 years.

Without a doubt, Bustamante was an autocratic leader who virtually owned the party he formed. Autocratic leadership is not altogether a bad thing. It has its virtues, as is evident in Jamaica’s progressive development during the regimes of Bustamante and his successor Edward Seaga. Under their influence the country did quite well, but the party had to pay a high price because of resentment, strained morale, and the inevitable distance between the leader, the aspiring successors, and also the confused rank-and-file.

In a democratic environment autocratic leadership cannot survive in peace and harmony, especially where the electorate is resistant to discipline and heavy manners. There was, of course, the exceptional Lee Kwan Yew of Singapore who was able to mix his autocracy with a transformational leadership style that ensured a smooth transition of leadership when he retired after 40 years.

Delegate support

When Bustamante retired, he was still very influential in the party. But his withdrawal was followed by some squabbling to fill the vacancy. This ended with Seaga succeeding him; and his autocratic style over the next 30 years is well documented. Yet, even when his popularity was at a low level, he was able to get the support of more than 70 per cent of the delegate vote.

The present leader of the JLP acceded to the post by caucus rather than election by the delegates. Later, at the height of his popularity, he was able to get just 57 per cent of the delegate vote. He had come to prominence promising transformational leadership, however his election victory may have turned his head. For, instead of reaching out for democratic unity, he proceeded — autocratic style — to purge and punish the 43 per cent of party loyalists who did not vote for him. This was a massive mistake for a wannabe autocrat who had neither the power, experience, savvy, or record of accomplishment to play that role.

Matters came to a crunch when, having no constitutional authority to change the Senate membership, he resorted to the subterfuge of undated resignation letters. The immediate outcome of this move is well known, and at one point it offered an opportunity for fence-mending, reflection and reformation. However, the urge for personal power continued to supersede the more important need for party power, and all because of the tradition of autocracy and the lack of an expressed ideology around which to rally.

The JLP has had many quarrels and break-ups. This one must be the most troublesome, because the leader lacks authority and there is no one in the party to claim neutrality as a mediator. Every one of the leading members has been involved either as victim or assailant. In other times, the resentment was aimed at the leader. Now most individuals have their own grouses and are firing shots at each other. There is no shortage of jabbing in the face and stabbing in the back.

Resignation letters

Thinking of resignation letters reminds me of how the autocrat Bustamante would settle internal disputes — more often with a minimum of disturbance. On the occasion when some leading members expressed opposition to his naming Leopold Lynch as minister for local government, he invited them to his home to deal with the matter. When they arrived he pointed them to two tables: one laden with refreshments and the other with pen and paper. Then he announced: “Gentlemen, I am going to appoint Lynch as minister. Those who agree may join me at the table for refreshment. Those who disagree can go to the other table and write their resignations.” No one went towards the stationery. Everyone partook of the comestibles and later left in good spirits.

A lesson to be learnt from this story is: If you do not have this type of clout; if you do not have a significant preponderance of the delegates’ votes, and tend to surround yourself with a motley crew of advisers, don’t try to be an autocrat.

Ken Jones is a veteran journalist, public relations consultant, and is the author of books on Marcus Garvey, Alexander Bustamante and other leading historic figures. Comments: kensjones2002@yahoo.com

PULL QUOTE

…there appears to be no redeeming factor; and there is unlikely to be a lasting remedy until the party comes to grips with the root cause, which is the strong and stubborn tradition of autocratic leadership that has been a dominant characteristic from the inception