Political tributes and trials

Are there lessons from a frank discussion on the legacy of stewardship?

This past week, former prime minister and president of the People's National Party, P.J. Patterson, was showered with accolades in Parliament from both sides of the political divide. There were no empty seats in the House as current and former parliamentarians gathered to pay tribute to the man who served as Jamaica's sixth and longest-serving prime minister. A month before, it was Edward Seaga, another former prime minister, longest-serving member of parliament and Jamaica Labour Party leader, who received similar treatment.

All this to mark Jamaica 50 and the contribution of both men to post-Independence development. But are the accolades an incomplete assessment of political stewardship since Independence? And what are the lessons for Jamaica and our current and future leaders from a more frank discussion on political leadership and Jamaica's current prospects?

It was a rare occasion to see a unified front towards former political giants in Jamaica's politics, being supported by their successors, who spared no effort to make them feel welcome and appreciated. There is a time and place for everything, and this event was a time to be magnanimous and kind-spirited, irrespective of former sentiments that may have been expressed to the contrary in the past.

The fact is that both Mr Seaga and Mr Patterson have given long and dedicated service to their respective political parties and the country. There are enough institutions and legislation, policies and programmes to demonstrate that both men demonstrated hard work and dedication to nation building. They have survived years of hustling to reach the pinnacle of political office and are still living, long after retirement, to relax and reflect on their individual efforts and collective stewardship of our country.

Their combined efforts and institutional memory should be second to no other political operative in Jamaica today. They would have seen pain and sorrow, achievements and celebration as our country embarked on an independent journey. They would have suffered personal setbacks as a result of political pursuits, agonised over political decisions that would have had mixed results, and been exposed to both condemnation and commendation for decisions taken and the consequences that followed.

Messrs Patterson and Seaga can easily be considered as critical contributors towards entrenching faith exclusively in two-party politics. They have the knowledge and experience to reflect on how it was done and how it can be used for better governance.

I have never subscribed to the view that our political process and politicians have done nothing or very little to advance the welfare of the Jamaican people. Since 1962, Jamaica has seen significant attempts at social and economic reforms towards improving the lives of our citizens.

many improvements

As the most recent census confirms, people are living longer. We also have greater and better access to education and health care and expanding critical infrastructure like water, electricity and telephone services. Some may argue that these improvements would have happened anyway, irrespective of our politicians, as a natural evolution of technology and modernisation. Others differ, arguing that there are many countries throughout the world that are still lagging in these areas, despite the availability of technology globally. Look no further than our Caribbean colleagues in Haiti, a country with a much longer democratic tradition than Jamaica.

For many, the issue is not that we have achieved nothing, but more pointedly, how much more we could have achieved if things had been done differently, and the lessons to be learnt from the many missteps by our political leaders over the past 50 years.

So despite the successes, there is ample evidence to support the view that Jamaica has had many missed opportunities and has earned a dubious reputation in many areas, linked to less-than-satisfactory political management. Fifty years after our Independence, we have lagged significantly in creating economic growth, incurred high levels of debt, and have had one of the highest crime rates in the world.

In helping to assess the legacy of our past political leaders, is it not reasonable to encourage those who have intimate knowledge of political management over the last 50 years, who are still able to offer intelligent and coherent commentary, to help those who have come after to understand where we went wrong, and what could be done to correct these ills?

Some argue that it is not only reasonable, but these long-standing leaders of the past have a duty to offer some advice, based on their involvement and experience.

Mr Seaga and Mr Patterson, our two most long-serving surviving political leaders, have the best opportunity to help Jamaicans not to repeat history in the areas that have brought us political, social and economic failures, just as they are entitled to share in the glory of political, social and economic achievements since 1962. Their greatest service to our nation today may just be to simply offer advice on what to avoid, based on their experiences.

There is always the temptation of former leaders to seek to entrench a legacy that paints the perfect picture of their stewardship. No one wants to be remembered as contributing to the negative features of a society or to have made mistakes which led to consequences for people's lives, communities and a country.

The Parliament, in celebration of Jamaica 50, and in recognition of the post-Independence political process, has reinforced the positive attributes of the legacies of both Mr Patterson and Mr Seaga. The tributes and accolades would have been appropriate for that occasion.

If the entire story is told, however, lessons will not be learned, and the impact of the legacy would be nullified, because it would not be perceived as credible by those who do not fall in the category of the party faithful.

MAKING LEGACY MATTER

It is highly likely that the growing bloc of uncommitted Jamaicans would not have enjoyed those two parliamentary settings, and such events would have reinforced their cynicism of the political process, as they would feel that it was an attempt by the current politicians to try to cover for their former colleagues by ignoring the ills of the past and possible sources of the current challenges. Unless balance is achieved, these efforts will be seen as self-serving.

It is in the interest of the political process, and our past and current political leaders, to provide another occasion to encourage reflections on the mistakes and consequences of political decisions. More important, it is in our interests to determine how to make things better for future generations.

This should not be done in a manner to criticise or condemn or engage in a blame game. That would be equally unproductive. Rather, it's an attempt at answering important questions that could have implications for generations to come. Questions like: Why no strong growth, cumulatively, for the last 40 years, and what could be done differently to achieve economic activity? How can current political structure and strategy be used to achieve greater collaboration around common goals? How do we change the political culture to focus more on a meritocracy rather than raw political loyalty?

As P.J. Patterson pointed out last Tuesday, political leaders need to change the tone and aggression of debate and encourage engagement of political talent in governance. It would be good to know his thoughts on how this could be done. Both P.J. and Eddie have seen it all, and they should be encouraged to tell it. Let's challenge them to do so, as a service to future generations.

Dr Chris Tufton is a senator, opposition spokesman on foreign affairs and trade, and investments, and co-executive director of CaPRI. The views in this column do not necessarily represent those of the above-mentioned entities. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and cctufton@yahoo.com.