Dennis Minott | Holness vs Zuma: Seven uncanny parallels in Jamdown and Mzansi

There are moments in the life of a nation when thoughtful citizens experience a growing unease — not because democracy has collapsed, but because patterns repeat with disturbing familiarity. Jamaica may now be approaching such a juncture.

In the aftermath of Hurricane Melissa, the island has entered a period of accelerated reconstruction, heightened executive urgency, and concentrated state power. Many welcome decisive leadership during a crisis; societies battered by disaster naturally crave efficiency and visible authority. Yet, history warns that national emergencies are fertile ground for institutional distortion and the quiet normalisation of political centralisation.

Within this context, uncomfortable similarities are emerging between Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness’ post-Melissa Jamaica and President Jacob Zuma’s post-Mandela South Africa. While Jamaica has not descended into full-blown ‘state capture’, democracies do not deteriorate all at once. They drift, acclimatise, and normalise the abnormal. Comparative political vigilance is essential.

CRISIS GOVERNANCE AS A PERMANENT MODE

A defining feature of the Zuma years was the expansion of executive-style urgency. Exceptional circumstances justified extraordinary administrative flexibility. In post-Melissa Jamaica, a similar pattern is surfacing. The language of resilience and necessity is invoked to justify compressed oversight and the concentration of authority within structures like NaRRA. Reconstruction is necessary, but we must ask: when does temporary emergency governance mutate into a semi-permanent political culture? Powers acquired during crises are rarely surrendered voluntarily.

CONCENTRATION OF EXECUTIVE POWER

Post-Mandela Mzansi (South Africa) witnessed the strengthening of political influence around executive networks rather than independent institutions. This emerged bureaucratically; appointments and political proximity mattered more than merit. In Jamaica today, concern surrounds the expanding authority of the Office of the Prime Minister and its connected structures. Wise democracies ask what future leaders might do with the precedents established today. This is profound in a small-island state where land, contracts, and energy systems carry enormous economic value.

POLITICALLY CONNECTED COMMERCIAL ECOSYSTEMS

The Zuma era was marred by allegations that connected business interests — symbolised by the Gupta brothers — acquired disproportionate influence over procurement and state direction. Jamaica is smaller in scale, yet citizens increasingly detect ‘access politics’. There is a growing perception that proximity to authority confers privileged access to development approvals, reconstruction contracts, or strategic land deals. Once ordinary people suspect that rules apply differently to the elite, civic trust erodes. Without trust, democracy weakens.

FRAGILE INSTITUTIONAL GUARDRAILS

Under Zuma, many South Africans feared the intimidation of independent institutions. This rarely involved outright abolition; it was a process of gradual pressure, selective enforcement, and the soft undermining of oversight. Jamaica’s institutions remain resilient, yet questions persist regarding executive discretion. Can planning processes be bypassed? Can environmental scrutiny be softened? Can regulatory bodies resist pressure where major economic interests are involved? These are not anti-government queries; they are vital constitutional questions.

GROWING CYNICISM ABOUT FAIRNESS

A tragic outcome of post-Mandela South Africa was public disillusionment. Citizens concluded that laws operated rigorously for the poor while flexibility existed for the connected. Similar anxieties are surfacing in Jamaica. The taxi operator in Half-Way Tree often experiences the State differently from the powerful developer. The Portland fisherfolk worrying about coastline access may not experience the same "administrative flexibility" as major commercial actors. Once fairness becomes selective, national cohesion dissolves.

DIGITAL MANIPULATION AND NARRATIVE MANAGEMENT

The later Zuma years revealed the use of digital influence operations and coordinated messaging to shape public perception. Jamaica is entering a similar era. "Sockpuppetting", anonymous digital attacks, and synthetic online consensus increasingly contaminate discourse, particularly regarding energy controversies or governance issues. Once citizens lose confidence in the authenticity of public debate, democratic reasoning becomes impossible. Truth dissolves into noise, making the nation easier to manipulate.

CULTURE OF DEMOCRATIC FATIGUE

Perhaps the deepest parallel concerns public psychology. By the end of Zuma’s tenure, many South Africans experienced democratic exhaustion — a weary belief that opacity and political theatre were permanently embedded. That fatigue kills civic energy. People stop expecting better, which is dangerous because democracies survive only through citizens who believe accountability matters. Jamaica must avoid this emotional drift. The post-Melissa period should be an opportunity for renewal, not a gateway to favoured networks and weakened oversight.

Vigilance does not require hysteria, but it forbids complacency. A great lesson from South Africa is that democratic weakening rarely announces itself dramatically. The constitutional shell often remains intact: elections are held, courts sit, and Parliament convenes. Yet, beneath the surface, power migrates away from transparent institutions toward discretionary networks of influence.

Jamaicans — whether ‘Green’, ‘Orange’, or unattached — must study this history. Nations seldom lose their vitality overnight; they become accustomed, little by little, to concentrations of power they once would have resisted. They drift. They acclimatise. They wake up too late to find that guardrails were weakened while they were distracted by spectacle or convenience.

Jamaica still has the opportunity to choose differently, but only if institutions remain stronger than personalities, and only if citizens retain the courage to ask difficult questions before drift hardens into decline.

Postscript: The Gupta Brothers scandal in South Africa remains a definitive example of ‘state capture’. During Jacob Zuma’s presidency, the family allegedly secured extraordinary influence over ministerial appointments and state-owned enterprises. 

Billions were siphoned away, damaging public trust and crippling institutions like Eskom. This serves as a stark warning about the dangers of ‘billioneering’ and the fragility of democracy when private interests bend public institutions to their will. Check out this Newsweek article https://www.newsweek.com/south-africa-five-thuli-madonsela-state-capture-report-516630

Dennis Minott, PhD, is the CEO of A-QuEST-FAIR. He is a multilingual green resources specialist, a research physicist, and a modest mathematician who worked in the oil and energy sector. Send feedback to: a_quest57@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.