The Opposition, broadly considered

Stephen Vasciannie

THESE ARE difficult times for opposition parties in Jamaica. Consider the JLP: the latest news is that a JLP Councillor has decided to cross the floor in the hope of receiving a warm embrace by her former PNP adversaries, while a JLP MP is contemplating the change.

At the same time, the mutterings remain: some JLP spokespersons are silent passengers in the national debate, some constituency representatives cut no dash on the ground and, even some media darlings now seem to have less substance than originally believed.

And yet, these may well be just iceberg symptoms, with only one-ninths of the real problems above the surface. In certain corridors, disgruntlement with the Leader of the JLP is steadily growing in volume. His critics ­ within the party ­ repeatedly mention that "Eddie is too stubborn" and that "the Old Man is now our greatest liability", while some of his supporters present themselves as narrow-minded partisans heavily burdened by the bunker mentality and impervious to anything vaguely resembling rational thought.

Two further strikes stand by the Opposition Leader's name at this time. First, there is the matter of money management: the level of Mr. Seaga's indebtedness, a question of intense speculation among some analysts, is now frequently mentioned as a cause for the apparent underperformance of the opposition forces in areas of national life.

This may, of course, be a fundamental misconception ­ and, perhaps, Mr. Seaga's financial difficulties have no bearing on his, or his party's fortunes. And, the various rumours, openly mentioned by some of his own lieutenants could, perhaps, be just that: rumours designed, with malicious intent, simply to weaken the Leader. But, I wonder. At very least, if the financial difficulties are real, and if the Government is prepared to use the resources of the State to achieve partisan objectives, why should we believe that the Leader of the Opposition is immune from "the squeeze"?

This is not to suggest, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition will necessarily succumb to financial pressure from his opponents; it is simply an acknowledgement that economic vulnerability is, at least in theory, a factor in influencing the state of mind of political representatives.

Secondly, Mr. Seaga, as party leader, must bear some degree of responsibility for the continued disaffection in the party ranks. To be sure, the opposition-within-the-opposition stance adopted by the firm of Messrs Henry, Charles & Co. cannot do much to enhance the party's standing; but, even outside that band of opponents, there seems to be a constant simmering of restlessness among those whose time would be better spent challenging the government on issues of policy.

Mr. Seaga needs to accept some responsibility for this situation because, in the recent past, he has talked divisively about good stock, dead wood and old people. His opponents, crying from the grassroots and elsewhere, have reason to believe that they have been marginalised simply for contending for positions of seniority and leadership, in keeping with their democratic rights. That said, however, Seaga is by no means a spent force. My impression is that, at the intellectual level, he can still match the best of the succeeding generation with ease; and although he occasionally grows silent in periods, he still has a firm, and comfortable, grasp of most national issues ­ certainly moreso than those who would wish to see his back right now.

Sometimes, too, I wonder whether we have taken sufficient cognisance of the demonisation programme to which Seaga has been subjected over the years. Naturally, he has made serious errors ­ Tivoli Gardens, for example, may boast social amenities and cultural achievements that supersede neighbouring communities, but, at the same time, it stands as testimony to the type of 'garrison' syndrome that has driven a dagger through the heart of decent politics in this country.

But even so, the success of the demonisation programme may be measured by the fact that another garrison leader, Portia Simpson Miller, stands head and shoulders above all comers in the political popularity stakes. No, Seaga's putative unpopularity is not the product of his garrison image; it follows more from the fact that the PNP has played the race card, and has been able to build on the foundation of disunity that Seaga and others have themselves engendered in the JLP.

The result, however, is that at a time when the PNP is enjoying an unprecedented third term of office, and slipping consistently upon banana peel after banana peel, the JLP is making little or no headway with the populace.

Banana peels?

Banana peels? In the last year or so, the PNP has slipped with respect to the following matters, among others: the Fat Cat Salaries Scandal, the Telecommunications Bill, initial resistance to the Street People Enquiry, the problem of crime and violence, economic hardships across the working and middle classes, mishandling of the Privy Council matter, the perception of corruption in high places, and declining conditions in schools and other public institutions arising from economic stagnation.

And yet, who can doubt that the PNP is really ahead in the polls? This must be the most sobering element in the political equation that now faces the JLP as it considers how to revive its fortunes. In the face of this crisis, there is, once again, talk that Bruce Golding and the NDM should be integrated ­ and in the case of some, reintegrated ­ into the ranks of the JLP. But can this be anything other than counsel of despair? Is there any scientific basis for the view that the sum of the JLP and NDM forces will exceed their component parts?

I do not see that evidence ­ and, in fact, there is a strong case for the view that a combined JLP/NDM aggregation would serve to undermine both its component parts. For one thing, the PNP would have a field day driving holes into the credibility of Golding, the new and different politician who returned home to the JLP on grounds of expediency. And, for another, several 'high ups' in the JLP would be more than angry with the Leader for allowing the reintegration of Golding and other former JLP members, whom they believe have betrayed the legacy of Bustamante.

The answer for both the JLP and the NDM is hard work, as independent entities. The PNP realised that long ago, and that's why they have a more organised structure in the field, and hold on to their die-hards even though the tamarind season is upon us.

Stephen Vasciannie, an attorney-at-law, teaches at the University of the West Indies.

Back to Commentary