Phillips
The following is an excerpt of the speech delivered by Dr. Peter Phillips at the 2007 Michael Manley lecture at the University of the West Indies, Mona.
Towards progressive political agenda for the current period - Part 1
Historians and social scientists will long argue about the relative merit and consequences of the Michael Manley era, by which essentially they mean the 23 years between 1969 and 1992 when he was in the People's National Party (PNP), including 11 years as Prime Minister of Jamaica.
With the passage of time, the intense passions that typified the politics of the period will subside, and more sober and reasoned judgments will be arrived at.
Indeed, the very fact that even today talk of the 1970s generates extreme reactions is proof enough of the immensity of the Michael Manley presence in our political and social history.
Our purpose here is not to do the accounting of the Manley years in any detailed sense. Rather, it is to determine the extent to which the political legacy of Michael Manley can be sustained and extended into the current period.
What then is that legacy? The starting point of any assessment must be the recognition of the fact of the similarities and continuities between philosophical and programmatic outlook of Michael Manley and that of N.W. Manley, consequential upon their common participation in the politics of the PNP.
In essence, there was the common commitment to nationhood and nation building; to greater equity in social arrangements; and to democracy and the two-party system.
Another fundamental philosophical continuity spanning the generations was the commitment to political organisation as the vehicle for national development. In both instances, too, the political party was viewed as the central hub of a national movement incorporating other relatively independent organisations representing diverse social and cultural interests.
Yet, for all the evident continuities, the distinctive elements of the Michael Manley political and philosophical legacy should not be ignored. Generally, the 1970s is presumed to have been a more radical and distinctive period of comprehensive reform than was the case with previous PNP positions.
This presumption is supported by the fact that there was a greater and more explicit use of the democratic socialist ideological label and concept as a means of political mobilisation and as a prism for critical self-analysis within the party.
'Socialist' label
In turn, with respect to foreign policy and foreign economic relations in particular, such tensions as were to occur between the United States and Jamaica over the bauxite levy, for example, or the opening of relations with Cuba, and the Non-aligned Movement, were to be significantly amplified on account of the particular resonance that the 'socialist' label would have had in a Washington pre-occupied with Cold-War competition between the so-called Eastern and Western blocs.
To say this, however, is not to devalue in any way either the scale or the ambitiousness of the political project for social transformation that was attempted in the 1970s.
Much of the institutional legacy still endures, in institutions such as the National Housing Trust, the Jamaica Bauxite Institute, JAMAL, the National Youth Service, Putting Work into Labour Day, etc. Furthermore, there is no doubt that as to the far-reaching and lasting social consequences of legislation such as the Status of Children's Act; the Minimum Wage Act, Maternity Leave with Pay Act, the Labour Relations and Industrial Disputes Act, to name just a few of the path-breaking bits of legislation enacted in the period of the first Michael Manley administration.
What is more, in relation to economic policy, the nationalisation of the public utilities, (Jamaica Omnibus Service, Jamaica Telephone Company, Jamaica Public Service Company), and the sugar estates, and the acquisition of majority ownership of local bauxite mining operations, all gave the state a more pronounced role in the 'commanding heights' of the local economy than at any time before or since.
To a considerable degree, the direct role of the state in the ownership and direction of enterprises, alongside th ideological emphasis in 'democratic socialism', and the massive political and social mobilisation of the population during the period, gave it its distinct and radical character, in the minds of most people.
'Nationalisation'
The distinctiveness of the period or its supposed extremism should not be overstated, however. It is worthwhile to recall, for example, that the PNP platform formally adopted in 1965 and in place for the 1967 elections advocated 'nationalisation' of the utilities, land reform, improvement of social services, eradication of illiteracy and improvements in the educational system; all pre-figuring to a considerable degree the programme followed in the 1970s.
Also, and equally to the point, in his book The Politics of Change, published in 1973, almost all the policies to be later implemented were set out. They included nationalisation of the commanding heights of the economy, self-reliance and mass-mobilisation. [The Politics of Change, 1973]. None of this, however, was articulated there within the ideological framework of 'Democratic Socialism'.
Instead, his analysis was structured by an assessment of the realities of post-colonial Jamaican society, disfigured by the effects of slavery and colonialism, and in need of radical restructuring.
Themes
In outlining the philosophical and programmatic underpinnings of his 'strategy for change', however, he sounded themes familiar since the inception of the PNP.
As with N.W. Manley, so with Michael, the notion of social equality was at the heart of his philosophical outlook:
"The more I have thought about the morality of politics, the more there has emerged for me a single touchstone of right and wrong, and the touchstone for me is to be found in notion of equality." [The Politics of Change, p.17]
Thirty years previously, N.W. Manley had declared in similar and perhaps more strident terms that "It is [why] socialism which is founded on the belief that it is possible to organise a genuinely egalitarian society, which is a society in which all opportunities will so far as possible be equal and open to all persons subject to the basic necessities of preserving society" [Nettleford, Manley and the New Jamaica, p.61 & 62].
Commitment
Equally fundamental was the commitment to democracy and to multi-party electoral competition.
Dependency, which was the anti-thesis of self-reliance, was for Michael part of the legacy of slavery and colonialism, which both at the level of the individual and in relation to the social and political system as a whole instilled doubt and fettered the capacity of the society to undertake collected action for the common good.
As Michael put it: "Self-reliance implies the ability on the part of the people of a country to make common efforts towards the general development and welfare of the group" [The Politics of Change, p.42]
Self-reliance was both precept and strategy and implied change in social, economic and political structures as well as attitudinal and cultural changes. In his view:
"Self-reliance is perhaps best identified as implying the recognition by every human being of his ultimate responsibility for himself in his social context and to himself in the course of his life." [The Politics of Change, p.42]
In summary, then Michael Manley reflected the general philosophical inheritance of the PNP which had been primarily enunciated by his father, and which was premised primarily on the mission of creating a society of greater equality, and democracy through organised activism both at the level of the political party and in government.
He extended this philosophical inheritance to some degree, particularly in respect of his doctrine of self-reliance and in his explicit delineation of the 'politics of participation'.
It may be claimed that his political practice was more radical and thus authentically socialist or progressive given the greater role of the state in assuming control of the commanding heights, the more activist foreign policy approaches and the intensity of the social and political resistance confronted both locally and internationally.
This, however, is beyond the scope of our consideration here. Suffice it to say, however, that the historical context of the first of the 1940s and 1950s was markedly different from that of the 1970s.
Despite the obvious differences in social and historical context, and the differences in political practice, the commonalities between the two Manley's certainly helped define the essential kernel of progressive politics in Jamaica.
The central principles were:
a) A commitment to the building of an egalitarian society; through the restructuring patterns of ownership and distribution of wealth.
b) A commitment to the consolidation and extension of democracy in the political sphere.
c) Expanding social opportunity, particularly in relation to Education, Health, Housing and other Social Services
d) A commitment to the 'Politics of Participation' as the means of paramount national objectives
e) Self-reliance as both precept underpinning political action and as the object of cultural transformation.
If this represents the essence of the Michael Manley legacy, it begs the question as to its relevance in the face of the current challenges. Political movements particularly those that operate in competitive electoral settings are always prone to the errors of 'triumphalism', since admissions of failure or inadequacy are generally exploited by electoral opponents, critical self-analysis, to that extent tends to be undervalued. There is as a consequence always the difficulty particularly in politically charged environments of arriving at sober assessments.
Nevertheless, in Jamaica's case the progressive movement can justifiably lay claim to many successes. Nationhood has been successfully established and social opportunities expanded; over the past six decades.
The economic and social structures typical of the plantation society which endured up until the 1950s have been definitively transformed and the culture of the Jamaican folk, which was subordinated and submerged for centuries has blossomed and we have enthralled the world, with our music and drama.
For all that, the evidence mounts that we are a society in crisis. Economic growth has been anaemic for the past three decades. Our educational system, while much more inclusive than in the past, continues to fail more than two out of three of its students who leave without certification.
More tragically, it is these uncertified school-leavers, trapped in ghettos of despair and hopelessness, who increasingly make-up the criminal armies dominating our so-called inner-cities, and driving a runaway murder-rate, which is among the highest in the world. No wonder then, that there is growing cynicism about politics and politicians and about the possibilities of the Jamaican nation-state to meet the expectations of the population.
Regularly, more than 60 per cent of the electorate report in opinion polls that the country is headed in the wrong direction. Rates of participation in elections have been declining steadily and there is compelling evidence corrupt behaviour is pervasive in many areas of public life.
Further to that, in terms of global political economy the intensification of cross border flows of commodities, services coupled with the mounting integration of world financial markets and the re-organisation of production processes worldwide which we collectively denote as 'globalisation' have severely limited the range of policy options available to all states, but particularly for small relatively powerless states such as Jamaica.
Traditional trading arrangements are being replaced, and the domestic markets opened to foreign producers; severe fiscal disciplines are being imposed and are exacerbated by the high-level of public debt; even as there is a general reduction in so-called Overseas Development Assistance.
In summary, small states such as ours face an increasingly competitive and hostile global environment even as the severity of the social crisis being experienced locally intensifies.
What then are the priority tasks of a progressive political agenda in the current period?
First, must be the challenge of ensuring high and sustained levels of economic growth. Of necessity, given the resource limitations of the state and the need to maintain prudent fiscal balances the source of the investments necessary to propel growth will primarily be the private investor.
The promotion of employee share ownership programmes and the like are not only critical to ensuring smoother and less confrontational industrial relations, but are also essential to the building of the country's social capital.
The second major task concerns the transformation of the educational system. The specific tasks which arise have been extensively discussed in the country and need not be revisited here in any detail. The issue which confronts us now is not so much ensuring access to the system for all, but ensuring consistently high-quality in the educational product. The quality of the educational product is dependent in turn on the quality of the instruction, the nature and extent of the physical infra-structure and the social environment within and around the schools.
The third clutch of issues relate to the matter of crime, disorder and social decay, as evidenced for example in the still too high rates of teenage pregnancies, the HIV AIDS epidemic and most of all in the high levels of conflict and violence. Again, in this regard some of the tasks and responsibilities are clearly or primarily governmental such as the reform of the police force and the justice system.
Any effort to recover these marginalised segments of the population will, however, require the extensive mobilisation of the entire national will and effort. Critical groupings, such as the churches, The community of volunteers among the non-governmental organisations, the private sector, as well as the more progressive and patriotic elements in the communities themselves will have to be motivated and mobilised alongside the agencies of the State.
If all of this is to be accomplished, it points to the need for a re-birth in the political life of the country. No doubt some progress has been made over the years toward such a renewal. We have retreated somewhat for example, from the excesses of political tribalism that have scarred our politics in the past.
The need for public financing of the political parties and for greater transparency in the operations of political parties was never greater and must be a central demand of any progressive politics in contemporary Jamaica.
Beyond that, however, our politics needs once again to recall the Manley concept of 'self-reliance' and the strategy behind the 'politics of participation'. The challenges of today in education, in community transformation in our inner-cities, require the mobilisation of the national will as never before.
Politics if it is to have any value to our people must once again be able to summon us to a commitment to the higher purposes of nationhood and civilisation. In turn, as Michael Manly reminded us such a politics must be rooted in an incontrovertible commitment to integrity and transparency.
Any complete agenda of political and social transformation will require attention to many other aspects of social and economic policy than we have laid out here. We have not, for example, dealt with issues of foreign policy or regionalism, which were a critical part of the Manley vision, and of the political inheritance of the progressive movement.
For the most part, we have simply sought to outline the essential elements of the Michael Manley political legacy, identifying the continuities and the divergence between his own political practice, and that which preceded him.
We would do well also to recall not only his ideas, but the tremendous example of selfless political service which he represented; the courage evident in the Jamaica Broadcasting strike of 1964 or in the bauxite levy negotiations; the vision and oratorical brilliance of the 1976 speech to the PNP annual conference.
He was able to motivate a whole generation to commitment and sacrifice, because (to paraphrase the Guyanese poet) he came not to dream, but he dreamed to change the world. And Jamaica did change. Now we need once more to summon the inspiration from his life to do it again, and to meet the challenges which history now imposes upon us.
