Manley’s Democratic Socialism in Jamaica

In 1974, the Peoples National Party declared that "Democratic Socialism" was the new political philosophy for Jamaica. This was dubbed "Communism" by some, partly because of the leader's close friendship with Fidel Castro of Cuba and partly because the P.N.P. was covertly supported by the Workers' Party of Jamaica (a Communist Party). 

Political challenges from the younger generation within the PNP, coupled with internal fighting, created a crisis for the PNP. Consequently, in November, Michael Manley, in conjunction with an advisory committee, announced their socialist programs in an effort to maintain party unity. Manley declared, “I want to spell out democratic socialist policy for Jamaica based on the premise that socialism is about equality. Equality did not mean uniformity, dictatorship of any kind, or equality in misery and poverty.

In 1979, the Jamaica Labour Party declared itself a "Social Democratic Party" in contradistinction to the P.N.P. 

Despite the problems democratic socialism is believed to have caused, according to the Jamaica Observer, in 2014 People’s National Party (PNP) said it will host a celebratory function on Thursday, November 20, to mark the 40th anniversary of the party’s reaffirmation of democratic socialism.

Please feel free to comment and share your views.

Economic Contributions to Political Violence

As stated by Williams (2011) The Evolution of Political Violence in Jamaica 1940-1980, the first dilemma of the Manley regime was the failing economy, which was not immediately apparent due to his success in attaining more revenue for Jamaica via the increased bauxite levies.

Secondly, the PNP government had to contend with an aggressive U.S. government that was determined to contain or eliminate communism/socialism around the world. After the 1972 elections, Manley initiated a series of controversial reforms aimed at improving Jamaica’s economy through the nationalization of several public service industries, and the government’s conversion to democratic socialism. The problem with Manley’s reforms was that Jamaica lacked the funding to make the country economically independent of what he considered to be an exploitative capitalist market.

Manley exacerbated this situation by turning to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank for a financial bailout for Jamaica. This ultimately undermined his own government’s authority when the banks demanded the implementation of several austerity economic measures in return for granting the loans. The problem with the IMF and World Bank demands was that the banks wanted Manley to reduce civil service sector jobs and decrease government spending at a time when Jamaica suffered from an unemployment rate of 23 percent. These demands precipitated an economic crisis for the country in the late 1970s.

 Manley assumed that any economy which continued to be dependent on foreign sources would fail and Democratic Socialism was necessary to unite the people and change attitudes. However, Manley failed to address the role of the government and political parties in establishing a connection with the marginalized youths who were involved in gang violence.
Although the PNP claimed victory in the 1972 elections, the party suffered through an increase in post-election political violence as JLP supporters continued their efforts to destabilize the Manley regime. In 1973, violence in west Kingston claimed the lives of six prominent citizens, forcing Manley to comment on the problems of Seaga’s control over the west Kingston constituency. Manley claimed that “a one-party state had been built in Tivoli Gardens (Back O’ Wall), the center of Seaga’s west Kingston constituency.

As nationwide violence continued to rise from 1972 through 1973, Manley created the Gun Court, which “was a special court established to deal with any crime involving a firearm including illegal possession of a firearm or ammunition and was to try anyone charged with a firearms offense within seven days of arrest.”  The creation of both the Gun Court and the Home Guard under the Manley government was indicative of an increase in the use of hand guns to commit politically motivated violence. (Williams, 2011)

There were a lot of initial factors that precipitated the episodes of politically related violence. The nation leaders being the major causes of the problem over the years. Each political leader postulating that their initiative is the right and the best choice in the interest of the country. And whenever there are disagreements resort to violent measures. Political decisions affects the economy which ultimately has a devastating effect on citizens who also resort to violence to obtain money especially since job availability is also affected.

Please feel free to comment and share your views.

1980’s Election Fever Happenings

It is a known fact that both political parties had deep-rooted associations with variant dons, notable among them 'Burryboy' [Michael Manley attended his funeral], 'Fedamop', 'Buckie Marshall', and 'Claudius Massop'. PNP and JLP Russian roulette-type rivalry culminated in 1980.

"After nine months of violence [February to October 1980, effectively the longest general election campaign in Jamaica] 844 [police official statistics] Jamaicans were killed on account of politics. Shockingly, almost 35 per cent of those killed were slaughtered in the constituency of West Central St Andrew, which had the JLP's Ferdinand Yap and the PNP's Carl 'Russian' Thompson as candidates." (Jamaica Observer, October 30, 2012).

According to the Jamaica Observer Columns article by Garfield Higgins (2015) entitled ‘Assassination plots and the birth of political violence in Jamaica’; going into Election Day in 1980, there were several tragic and eventful incidents. Among them:

Michael Manley's motorcade was fired on in May Pen: Manley was shaken but not stirred and did not suffer any bruises. (Gleaner, August 29, 2006).

"Tough-talking PNP candidate of St Andrew East Rural Roy McGann and his policeman bodyguard, Acting Corporal Errol White, were killed by policemen in Gordon Town Square a day before nominations opened." (Jamaica Observer, October 30, 2012).

When the dust cleared; the general election, held October 30, 1980, ended in victory for the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), which thumped the People's National Party (PNP) by 51 seats to nine, a record margin of victory by any party up to the time. (Jamaica Observer, October 30, 2012)

In these major elections many persons were affected not only citizens of Jamaica but political parties candidates. Election violence is a problem that continues to deteriorate Jamaica’s electoral process not only then but to this day.

Please feel free to comment and share your views.

The Epitome Of Jamaica's Political Violence

According to the Electoral Commission of Jamaica there were two major elections in the 1970’s. Firstly, the seventh General Parliamentary Elections was held on February 29^th 1972. The PNP won 37 seats with 69.8% of the vote and the JLP took 16 seats with 30.2% of the votes. The Right Honorable Micheal Manley became the fourth Prime Minister.

Secondly, in 1976 the eighth General Parliamentary Elections were held. Constituencies were increased to 60 seats. The PNP took 47 seats with 78.3% of the votes while the JLP won 13 seats with 21.7% of the votes. The Rt. Hon. Micheal Manley again became Prime Minister. This election was held during a National State of Emergency which Manley stated was necessary as a result of increased violence in the country. however many analysts believed Manley used the power of the state for devastating strategic and propaganda effect against his political opponent.

As stated by Williams (2011) in The Evolution of Political Violence in Jamaica 1940-1980, the 1970s represents an era marred by brutal political violence and the government’s inability to resolve the economic crisis. Both the JLP and PNP’s participation in political tribalism and politically motivated violence brought the credibility of Jamaican democracy and political practice into question. The competition between the JLP’s Hugh Shearer and later Edward Seaga, and the PNP’s Michael Manley for power is of pivotal significance to the evolution of political violence in the 1970s. This era gave rise to Jamaica’s most destructive partisan politics as local gunmen used terror tactics to disrupt the general elections.

This political behaviour was accountable for the death of nearly a thousand people as both parties viciously contested the 1976 and 1980 general elections. During Manley’s term as prime minister, there were a number of incidents that implicated his government in the perpetration of violence. One of the most egregious was the so-called ‘Green Bay Massacre’ in 1978 in which JLP supporters were allegedly set up, ambushed, and killed by members of the Jamaica Defense Force (JDF), presumed to be supporters of the government in power (People’s National Party). This incident served to portray the PNP as a force behind the violence and created distrust for the government among a growing percentage of the population.

So it was no longer viewed as a Jamaica Labour Party problem, fingers were now being pointed at both political parties. This issue of politically related violence is one that has remained over the years. And we see this being portrayed as recent as this year 2016, the year of Jamaica’s most recent General Election.

Please feel free to comment and share your views.

Roots of Jamaican Political Violence

Jamaica Labor Party, headed by Alexander Bustamante used conservative nationalism and created the framework for political violence. This political structure was further corrupted and exploited by both political parties over the years, thus encouraging loyal grassroots supporters to engage in violence in order to maintain power and win elections.

According to Williams(2011) dissertation entitled The Evolution of Political Violence in Jamaica 1940-1980, Manley’s collusion in violence via party supporters was evident in his testimony before the Hearne Commission in 1949 when he stated that “actually what happened was when you got your representatives at trouble spots, the trouble stopped. Of course, at times things developed into a fight.” Based on Manley’s statement, it is evident that he was aware of violence via the defensive actions of loyal party supporters in the 1949 election. By 1960, gang violence became equal to the high death rate, rise in gun violence, and hypocritical politicians who refused to acknowledge their role in propagating violence.

By independence in 1962, Norman Manley claimed victory for advancing Jamaica from a colony to independence while reminiscing on his tenure in office, and claimed that the country’s infrastructure was stronger due to his economic programs. However, despite these achievements, political violence persisted. In the 1940s, both Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley though they are forefathers of modern Jamaican politics they engaged in political deception to win elections, and developed the framework for political violence in Jamaica.

Please feel free to comment and share your views.

A Look at Digital Code of Ethics

In this constantly improving technology era there is likely to be widespread support for the idea of a digital code of ethics. This is based on concerns over electronic intrusion. Scenario:

“I took a call at five o’clock this morning,” Supt Richard Cooper told me last week. “A girl had texted her friend to say she’d taken an overdose. She couldn’t be found.” It is now Cooper’s job to decide whether Gloucestershire police should ask telephone and internet companies for customer records that, in this case, could save a life. 

Detectives in Gloucestershire accept that intrusive powers should be used no more than necessary. But they do not think these tools should be confined to serious cases. “If someone has stolen your bike and you see it advertised online with a mobile number to call, you expect us to find it,” one said. Senior officers believe ethical problems arising from their powers to access communication data are likely to become more acute as we rely ever more on electronic communication. (Rozenberg, 2015),

According to an article in the guardian by Joshua Rozenberg (2015), the police can obtain communication data under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, known as Ripa. Such data may provide details of where, when and for how long a phone or a computer has been used but not the contents of a phone or email. But then there is concern from the public regarding invasion of privacy.

In countries such as Jamaica, the police often visit telecommunication companies and obtain information on suspects, although the cry about invasion of privacy is still prominent. An example of this was portrayed in the Jamaican highly publicized case involving popular entertainer Adijah “Vybz Kartel” Palmer. In the court proceedings a witness from telecoms company Digicel testified that none of the 40 telephone numbers for which the police requested customer information was “ascribed” to Vybz Kartel and his four co-accused.

Please feel free to comment and share your views.

Ethical Standards in Military (Soldiers)

Soldiers are often viewed as being the most disciplined and well respected criminal justice profession. In order to maintain this view there ethical standards that one must follow.

According to the Defense Information School, Fort George G. Meade, Maryland, the military has a code of ethics that are referred to as core values and are drilled into every new recruit. Especially as public affairs professionals, they have to hold themselves and all service members to high ethical standards.

As Soldiers, the public expects them to be truthful, honest, and professional. If they do not avoid conflicts of interest they can lose the public's' trust, and bring shame to themselves, their career field, and overall service to the country. Examples of conflict faced by soldiers include: bribery which is offering, promising, demanding, seeking, receiving, accepting, or agreeing to receive anything of value to influence any official act. And compensation from other sources which refers to a task or job performed outside normal working hours does not necessarily allow employees to accept payment for performing it. If the undertaking is part of one's official duties, pay for its performance may not be accepted from any other source regardless of when it was performed.

Military leaders while highlighting soldiers' ethical dilemmas stated that in the war in Iraq and war on terrorism, it is often unclear to military leaders who "the enemy" is, creating such ethical dilemmas as whether to bomb threatening targets even though it may harm civilians or use torture tactics to get people to reveal enemy secrets. (Dittmann, 2005) This often comes down to the soldiers using their discretion or resorting to the principle of utilitarianism which supports an act if it benefits the majority of persons.

Please feel free to comment and share your views.