Robert Buddan
THE HIGH point of Charles' involvement in party intrigue came during the 'Gang of Five' episode. Pearnel himself tells us about this 'Gang of Five' and what happened to it.
In A Cry from the Grassroots he claims that the Gang of Five never existed as a coherent group. It was only five politicians "isolated and out-manoeuvred by their opponents for power in the party." This was possible because, according to Charles, "Edmund Bartlett had dutifully been reporting to (Mr. Seaga) on the purported plotting by other members of the Gang of Five."
Charles spoke of more treachery saying, "For his own personal political ends, Bruce Golding, my brother-in-law, supported Seaga in the fabrication of a plot by the Gang of Five." An even more damning statement follows. Charles wrote that, "all five persons involved have publicly stated [that] he [Golding] may even have been the architect of the whole incident and the person who actually decided the who's who of the alleged plot."
He gave reasons. Errol Anderson was to have challenged Golding for the chairmanship of the party and was expected to win. Samuda intended to contest for a deputy leadership after Percy Broderick vacated for reasons of disaffection. Vaz was persuaded to contest for the vacant post of assistant treasurer. Bartlett intended to replace general secretary Ryan Peralto, who Charles described as a protégé of Golding's.
Those events occurred in 1989/90. In 1990, Charles was ready to recant. He wrote to Mr. Seaga to say, "I am not a member of any gang, or clique. I do not support any gang or clique inside or outside of the Jamaica Labour Party. I am only a member of the Jamaica Labour Party." Seaga dismissed the denial, told Charles he would report his letter to the Central Committee, and that he should not write to him again but direct his letters to the general secretary.
Five days after, Seaga revoked Charles' appointment as shadow minister for agriculture. On the same day, party chairman Bruce Golding wrote to Charles to say that he would not be considered a candidate of the JLP for the next elections.
Charles records many accusations that he was a member of a clique against someone or the other ambitious to be leader of the party. He denies these accusations but there have been so many of them that you have to wonder if his career has been harmed by a series of misjudgments and miscalculations. For instance:
In 1990, Mr. Seaga accused him of being a member of a gang and a clique in the party
In the 1970s, supporters of Robert Lightbourne, then contesting for leadership against Mr. Seaga, accused him of being a member of the Seaga clique.
Later in the 1970s, Frank Phipps accused Charles of being part of a Seaga gang planning to throw him out of the party.
Ian Ramsay made a similar accusation, that Charles was part of a Seaga clique, intent on preventing him from being leader of the JLP.
Charles wanted to say that he had been more a supporter of Mr. Seaga than a dissenter. But he is also telling us that, according to Lightbourne, Phipps and Ramsay, Mr. Seaga had gangs and cliques of his own (and Charles was a part of them). Mr. Seaga has repeatedly said he would not tolerate gangs and cliques in the party.
A CAREER OF MISCALCULATIONS
It seems that from the very outset Pearnel Charles, even by his own admission, has made miscalculations. He recalled that when he and Errol Anderson first accepted Seaga's invitation to work in the West Kingston constituency, he "did not know at the time that Edward Seaga was to become the creator of the multitude of problems that I was to eventually face as a political functionary." Alexander Bustamante fired Charles and Anderson when he heard about their association with Seaga. Charles reflected that, "being the shrewd judge of character that he was, Sir Alexander might have seen that we were entering a relationship that could only bring us the grief and tragedy it later did." Hugh Shearer and Lady Bustamante begged Sir Alex to take them back.
This was in the early 1960s. Yet, Charles himself says that he was more often a supporter of Seaga than not in the 1970s. Why did he persist after he had been punished by Bustamante before for the same thing? And, why then did he still join the traditionalist/Seaga camp again this year after he had come to realise by 1999 that entering a relationship with Mr. Seaga could only bring tragedy and grief. There seems to be an answer. If Mr. Golding is to be believed, Charles intended to have the last laugh on Mr. Seaga.
THE FINAL ACT: DOUBLE CROSS
Charles, according to Mike Henry, was selected to run against Golding because he was the most 'marketable' person to do so. Probably the traditionalists hoped that Charles would be party leader and as a trade-off, support Seaga as Leader of the Opposition. But in Mr. Golding's version, Pearnel Charles was privately trying to negotiate to become Leader of the Opposition himself. Charles in turn would drop his objections to the party's voters' list.
Charles has denied that this conversation took place but other reports on the matter convinces one otherwise. It would explain why Shaw and other Seaga traditionalists have suddenly bolted from Charles' camp. Remember that Golding had said that Mr. Seaga could continue as Leader of the Opposition if he wanted to. Probably, Mr. Seaga feels that his better bet now lies with Mr. Golding. Charles and Golding tell us different things about their private talks. Henry and Shaw have different stories about why they decided to back Charles in the first place. Who can we believe?
The ultimate lesson of all this is about the party as an organisation. The party remains one in which its procedures and organs are continuously challenged. This goes to its very credibility. It remains a party in which the most powerful figures do not trust each other. It is thick with intrigue. It is a party that is very unstable because of the unpredictable shifts of alliances, even the most unlikely ones. It has now even been forced to suspend its most important annual meeting its general conference indefinitely.
It has not been an easy party in which to survive. Better men than Pearnel have fallen by the wayside. In his case though, he has not been marginalised because he has stood for a principle and the question remains: how much has he contributed to his situation by trying to play and beat the party at its own unprincipled games?
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. You can send your comments to Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or infocus@gleanerjm.com
