“The Right Move” : Corporate Leadership & Governance in Jamaica – A Review

It is a story of conglomerates, echoing tales of mergers, acquisitions, profitability and pride. It is a narrative of human failure, defeat, deft, inefficiency and mismanagement. But it is also the story of triumph, perseverance, courage and character. It is the record of Jamaica’s corporate leaders, bastions of entrepreneurship.

Authored by Delano Franklyn (former Minister of State, Foreign Affairs and Trade), the book is called ‘The Right Move: Corporate Leadership and Governance in Jamaica’. Written with a zest and pace sadly missing from much of the discourse on business and entrepreneurship, The Right Move is a bold attempt to celebrate the accomplishments of 39 of Jamaica’s business leaders, nominated for the Jamaica Observer’s Business Leader of the Year, 1996. This, Franklyn has done by locating the successes and failures of these businessmen and women within the context of the country’s prevailing economic environment and the extent to which this environment impacts on the way businesses are forced to operate.

Refraining from the use of theoretical economic jargons, the book contributes to a solid structure of knowledge while easing readers through the vicissitudes of being an entrepreneur. Utilizing personal interviews, business materials and the annual reports of publicly listed companies, Franklyn succeeds in exposing the entrepreneurial shrewdness of some of Jamaica’s corporate leaders, probes the thinking and decisions made by them – in an effort to understand the criteria which underlay their success and the reasons behind their failures. This, the author has accomplished in a manner which is best described as non-judgmental but not necessarily uncritical.

Without making direct reference to it, Franklyn in The Right Move cleverly engages readers in a discussion about leadership and governance, of course without placing excessive attention on political leadership. Rather, he manages to pull into sharp focus the whole notion of corporate governance, embarking on a meticulous appraisal of Jamaica’s business leaders, particularly their responsibility in driving a market economy.

WHO ARE JAMAICA’S REAL ENTREPRENEURS?
In the preface of The Right Move, the author poses a question which I contend forms the fundamental basis of the book: “Why are some businesspersons able to do well, particularly in arduous and demanding situations while others are less able to do so”? Such a blunt, candid question underlines what Franklyn has posited as the “qualitative difference between businesspersons who view challenges and changes as insurmountable obstacles to business development and those who are prepared to apply new methods, new techniques and creative innovations to cope with challenges and changes”. Who then are the entrepreneurs in Jamaica? It is a question which is left hanging but even a cursory reading of the book will furnish a certain answer.

ASSESSING THE BUSINESS ENVIRONMENT
No objective assessment of any entrepreneur or commercial enterprise in Jamaica, small or expanding, can be accomplished without a keen analysis of the country’s prevailing business environment. The Right Move therefore takes as its point of departure a detailed review of the Jamaica economy and the state’s attempt to create the kind of environment which fosters growth and development. Evaluated within the milieu of the intrinsic worth as well as the snares of globalization and liberalization, Franklyn shows demonstrable prrof of the significant structural adjustments that government has been compelled to undertake in order to ensure increased productivity and competitiveness.

In this regard, Jamaica is said to have experimented with a range of economic strategies since the 1950s, aimed at achieving economic growth and development. The Right Move is a comprehensible testimony of the symbiotic relationship that ought to exist between the private sector, government’s policies and the responsibility of the business community to perform within such a framework. It is of course beyond contention that many of the structural adjustment policies undertaken by government to respond to varied economic conditions have hampered some businesses.

THE JAMAICA FINANCIAL SECTOR IN THE MID 1990S: FRANK PERSPECTIVES
Corporate leaders such as then Chairman of Bank of Nova Scotia, William ‘Bill’ Clarke posit other factors that he claims primarily caused the meltdown of the financial and insurance sectors. Clarke declares in Franklyn’s book that there are certain fundamental principles that banks ought to be guided by. ‘Banks ought not to be pawnbrokers and should stick to their core principles and core business’. Many operators of financial institutions interviewed by Delano Franklyn have failed in this regard. Mutual Life’s Jim Parkes in an extraordinary admission in the book says: “we forgot we were an insurance company”.

GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION VIA FINSAC: A LOOK BACK
Based on Franklyn’s studies of Mutual Life, Life of Jamaica, the Eagle Financial Network and national Commercial Bank (NCB), the government’s intervention in the financial sector in the mid 1990s through the Financial Sector Adjustment company (FINSAC) has been touted as a necessary evil. It may well have been but at the same time, its very existence exposed the vulnerability of many entities and the seeming ineptitude of its leadership. In the end, Franklyn establishes that radical reforms had become mandatory in order to, literally, resuscitate some of these companies and to restore profitability in others. Many such as NCB, according to Franklyn, “sought to divest itself of its non-core business assets, reduce its operating costs and concentrate on financial services, its core business”.

From tourism and manufacturing to commerce and entertainment, serious management decisions were undertaken, many of which focused on fielding the best human resource. Importantly, in my opinion, these decisions were, perhaps for the first time, not based on loyalty to company or shallow friendship. Says LOJ’s Dennis Lalor, “there was no need to dismiss anyone; we simply raised the performance bar;  Those who were not able to meet the new criteria dropped out” (p. 56). Meanwhile, Roy D’Cambre, described by Franklyn as a feisty, self-deprecating entrepreneur declares “anyone in my organisation who tells me that something can’t be done is gone! What the employee means is that he cannot do the job and I simply have to find someone who can”! (p. 249).

FROM THE MOUTHS OF JAMAICA’S BUSINESS LEADERS
Wayne Chen of Superplus says he is  an  “unrelenting believer in a market economy”. The masterminds behind the Asylum and Margueritaville, Brian Chung and Christopher Cargill vow to continue to invest in Jamaica. Meanwhile for female business powerhouse, Doreen Frankson of Edgechem, crime is no deterrent, and Roy D’ Cambre declares “I love a fight”. It is clear that many of the business leaders interviewed by Delano Franklyn for this book have demonstrated gritty tenacity in the face of mounting problems; have taken risks but have ultimately been recognized as victors in their field.

THE ENTREPRENEURIAL PERSONALITY: WHAT IS IT?
With razor sharp precision, Delano Franklyn has managed to arrive at some elements of what constitutes what he calls the ‘entrepreneurial personality’. They are first and foremost risk takers whose ambition and determination drives their success. They tend to have confidence in their ability to succeed, demonstrate a high level of energy and commitment and a desire for responsibility. Skill and experience are touted as necessary but not sufficient prerequisites of a “real” entrepreneur. Throughout the book, however, other elements of this “entrepreneurial personality” took shape in the desire of many of these business leaders to provide quality service at reasonable prices, ensure that their staff is highly trained and competent and illustrate the capacity to respond quickly and adroitly to changes in the surrounding business environment.

IS FAILURE A NECESSARY PART OF BUSINESS?
It must be understood that many entrepreneurs can and do exhibit these characteristics and still fail. Fortunately, Delano Franklyn, author of The Right Move does not regard business failure as something to be ashamed of. Rather, Franklyn presents business failure as part and parcel of the risks inherent in business. Indeed, Franklyn advises that “calculated risk taking must be encouraged among those who desire to become entrepreneurs”. This is obviously not novel advice but there are those who have failed and have claimed that they have lost the “spirit” to pull themselves from the “ashes” while others declare that “businessmen are businessmen and will always look for opportunities regardless of the situation”. Who are the real entrepreneurs then?  You choose!

WHO ARE THE REAL ENTREPRENEURS THEN? MY ANSWER…
To my mind, from the street side vendors and cart pushers to the peanut man and the individuals who earn a living selling from their vehicles, Jamaican people are fully possessed with the “entrepreneurial personality”. Obviously, there is no singular set of criteria, which maybe adhered to if one desires to be successful at entrepreneurship. The business leaders featured in The Right Move is verifiable evidence of this.

The Right Move, authored by Delano Franklyn is a highly recommended book for students and teachers of Business administration, Management Studies, Political Science and Journalism, as well as anyone interested in entrepreneurship or the Jamaican business environment. The book is thought-provoking and instructive. At the same time, it opens the way for further discussion on business in Jamaica, and calls attention- unconsciously perhaps- also to the varied and creative ways the operators of small-business exist in the prevailing economic environment. The subject of another publication? Maybe

To purchase this book, and others from this author, including his latest, Sprinting into History, see www.delanofranklynbooks.com.

Michael Lee Chin Buying up Jamaica: Is anyone going to STOP HIM?

Monday, November 17, 2008 at 4:32am | Edit Note | Delete

The prospect of billionaire Michael Lee-Chin gobbling up majority shares in the Jamaica Pegasus hotel has not escaped the attention of the former chairman of the Urban Development Corporation, Dr. Vin Lawrence, who is alerting the public to scrutinise the sale.

Dr. Lawrence who led the UDC, the state entity which owns just under 60 per cent of shares in the Pegasus Hotel Company, for more than 15 years, is concerned about a possible conflict of interest in that the sale of the luxury hotel.

Dr Lawrence’s concern is based on his recollection that Lee Chin, chairman of National Commercial Bank and the AIC Group and brother of current UDC chairman, Wayne Chen put “a lot of pressure” in order to acquire the UDC shares in the Jamaica Pegasus hotel, while he was chairman.

He said Lee Chin even appealed to then Prime Minister Patterson. However, his price was not right as the billionaire offered a share price, which was less than 50 per cent of the value at which the shares were trading.

Dr Lawrence, a former treasurer of the opposition People’s National Party and who was described as “God” by his critics because of his influence, indicated that under his watch there was a willingness to sell the shares but only if the price was right.

Amidst growing concerns in some quarters that the ruling Jamaica Labour Party has continued a trend to sell state assets to friends and supporters, the former UDC chairman argue that family relationship must not be exploited to make the shares available at knockdown prices.

The Jamaica Pegasus is very profitable reporting profits of J$39 million for last year and J$40 for the first six months of this year on revenues.

The 71.8 million shares in the hotel were last traded at J$20 per share.
I’m not aware of any offer from my brother. But if one is made then I would recuse myself from any deliberations relating to that issue, Chen told the Sunday Herald yesterday.

The process,” Chen added, “is being handled by an independent party, Scotia DBG Investment and we will have a reserve price in the document.”

“The public can be assured that under my watch the sale of UDC assets will be transparent. An enterprise team under the chairman of Laurie Ventour assisted Joe M Matalon with representatives from the DBJ. UDC is handling the divestment of UDC assets and any conflict of interest issue will be dealt with transparently,” Chen said.

Financing the UDC
Dr Lawrence also pointed out that the critical question is how the UDC finances itself. He stated that the UDC has been off government budget since 1986 when the IMF conditionality required it to come off the budget. He said that when the PNP administration took office in 1989, UDC had a deficit of J$1.5 billion (in nominal value at that time U$300 million).

Under his watch, he said, the UDC survived on some key institutions and constant development project activities. Dunn’s River, he pointed out, was a key source of UDC cash flow. He also said in the later years, the Jamaica Pegasus that had begun to turn a constant profit was useful to the UDC.

The former chairman who was a key functionary to numerous government initiatives during the Patterson administration including the refurbishment of the National Stadium, the rehabilitation of public hospitals and Sandals White House among other projects, resigned suddenly during the Simpson Miller year-and-a- half in office as Prime Minister. ‘Lawrence pointed out that from his observation, the UDC has done very little over the last year. He opined that the UDC appears to have sold some assets cheaply and acquired new assets at high prices. He suggested that the lifeline of the J$1 billion loan facility from the DBJ is not only unsustainable but it is also against the function and policy of the Development Bank to provide cash flow support.

Paid too much
Lawrence did not believe he was in a position to comment on the sale of any particular piece of UDC asset since he was not privy to the terms of the sale. He was aware of the controversy surrounding pieces of land sold by UDC subsidiary in Freeport Montego Bay. One such transaction led to the resignation of the chairman of the subsidiary, Tony Lindo.
Asked about the controversy surrounding the acquisition of the property, which houses the Hydel Group of Schools owned by JLP senator and former NDM president Hyacinth Bennett, Dr Lawrence “rubbished” the first statement by PM Golding that sought to offer justification for the acquisition.

Dr Lawrence said that property has no bearing whatever on the strategic development of the Caymanas area. He also said that the UDC has built new schools of similar size to the Hydel Group for less than J$168 million. Lawrence believed that the UDC has paid too much for the property.

The PURGING of PJ’s PNP? Has Portia become redundant?

The People’s National Party HAS imploded, as it should! This is the DEATH. There can be no reconciliation or healing at this moment. The wound is too raw; the defeat too heavy; the consequence of not attaining the renewal agenda too catastrophic.

The healing did not take place after the last internal election either. There could never be with a so-called ‘lumpen’ in power; This is no ordinary lumpen albeit – but one whom after 25 years had proved to herself and the nation that she was not PREPARED for the mantle of leadership. Portia – The ‘failed experiment’, the nation conceded.

This precipitated a challenge – a challenge which did not derive from personal ambition by Comrade Peter Phillips – but which had become mandatory – if the Party was to regain any political ground, respect and standing as a force in the society. Portia is important to this process, indeed; but many KNEW she could not lead/head the renewal.

To recast her in the same position is NOT to be seen as a VOTE OF CONFIDENCE in her leadership. It is, rather, a personal vindication for those who felt, on solely personal grounds, that a challenge should not have been effected, albeit indispensable. Portia FAILED miserably to UNITE the party post general election 2007. She arguabley COULD NOT as she, herself, represented (and continues to represent) the GREATEST SOURCE of discontent, division, and angst withinbher own party. Her personality is NOT made for leadership, not of the kind that the PNP is historically known for, and surely not of the kind that renders politcal healing or political settlment of the kind required to reunite the first nationalist party in Jamaica. For Portia to simply PRAY for healing is, not only to mock GOD, but proof of her totally out of touch, and out of place she is!

What we are left with is a party without footing. A party which today (September 20) after 70 years in existence – voted against real renewal, real progress and areal opportunity for rebirth and regeneration. It is like having a car which has been worn down, having done its time on the road and you refuse to take it in for servicing and/or repair. This is the kind of death that the JLP experienced with SEAGA when he failed to concede leadership. And the consequence of that attachment to power was there for all to see in the JLP”s absolute failure to win at the polls and the total lack of confidence in the party as a structure from which to pin the hopes of the Jamaican people.This lasted for some 18 years.

Portia’s personal ambition became her ultimate driving force and motivator over and above a restoration of the PNP, and a commitment to governing. A political party’s chief goal is to win elections. Everything else comes after that. Can Portia’s PNP win an election under her leadership against a STRONG more united than they ever were JLP? Can POrtia really contest man to woman, Bruce Golding? Does Portia really have the confidence of the Jamaican electorate? Will die-hard PNP voters turn out to vote for Portia? Will the monied class support a PNP with Portia at the helm? These are the questions that Portia MUST ask herself? Why am I doing this? Do I fear becoming anachronistic, obsolete and insignificant were I to let go of the desire to lead the PNP?

Those who want power, in and of itself, are some of the greatest tyrants in history. A tyrant is not a leader make. But many tyrants are in positions of leadership. So the party cannot and will not unite simply on the basis that it should. It MUST out of necessity purge itself.

At this moment in history, all Portia’s PNP will do is PURGE itself of those who contested and challenged it. It will, sadly, only PURGE itself of some its most able leaders, its historical stalwarts who had brought wisdom, intellect and ability to governance. It will PURGE itself of those who contributed time and effort to its successes over the years. It will PURGE itself of those who had rendered the party a respected and time-honoured institution that had served the Jamaican nation.

It will PURGE itself of its true mission, and replace it with a ‘lumpen’ agenda, and with folks who neither know government or governing (but ‘politics’ ); nor have the capacity to manage a society crumbling under the force of inaction, and lack of politial will. SADLY, Portia’s PNP will not PURGE itself of its OWN LEADER, a leadership that inspires conflict, discontent, and un-confidence – all issues with form the basis of the Party’s problems.

Social Intervention cannot substitute Hard Policing

“When a gangbanger shoots indiscriminately into a crowd, because he feels someone disrespected him, we have a problem of morality. Not only do we need to punish that man for his crime, but we need to acknowledge that there is a hole in his heart, one that government programmes alone may not be able to repair.”

 Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope

Social intervention seems to be the new catchword for dismantling criminality in Jamaica. Given the failings of a mono-policing approach for many years, the intervention of state sponsored social intervention programmes in crime-ridden communities is a good thing. Social intervention however is not a panacea. It cannot fix the hole in the heart of the criminals roaming our streets. It will not fix the defective moral compass of many of our citizens.

Social intervention is neither to be confused with civic intervention, the indispensability of people-lead (rather than state-imposed) civicness and civility in transforming values, attitudes, behaviours, citizens’ sense of self, and collective responsibility. Social intervention as a crime strategy appears to, again, misguidedly relies solely on the intervention of the state, with limited participation by civil society from within the most crime ridden areas. Whereas social intervention provides alternatives to criminality, it will take a cultural revolution ‘from below’ constructed and lead and sustained by people within their own communities to enact the kind of transformation which will heal the society so far gone into social decay.

 

 

 

 

A Disappointing Debut Budget Speech

On April 23, 2008, I was among three political analysts invited to participate in a post budget discussion on the popular public affairs programme, The Breakfast Club, aired weekday mornings on News Talk 93 FM. The following is a fuller account of my assessment. The Prime Minister’s Budget presentation was, at best, unimpressive, and at worst, disappointing. It was not a masterful presentation, neither in terms of the eloquence nor (managerial and technocratic) purposiveness, of which PM Bruce Golding has become known, and to which the Jamaican people have become accustomed, and for which they rate him highly. In light of the latter, I wish to lodge the following caveat.

 

A Note on Eloquence

In rating the Prime Minister’s Budget presentation, some people misguidedly focused purely and minimally on Golding’s extraordinary ability to articulate – his fluency, expressiveness, persuasiveness and confidence.  This is, no doubt, understandable. In a society beset with chronic language skills problems and a poor overall literacy record, any ability to demonstrate above average coherence and reasoning is often misconstrued for greatness. “Man can talk,” we often utter in succumbing to the awe of the individual’s ability to use language creatively.

 

Mind you, eloquence and the capacity to articulate ideas are critical to drawing people to listen, and essential for them to retain their keen attention to your message. Pure eloquence, however, does not make a great presentation; a singular ability to talk does not constitute a great leader. This kind of “Obama-ism” will not wash in any serious assessment of Golding’s budget presentation. Having appealed to people’s ear, there must be something of substantive importance that you have to tell them. You must sustain their attention through personal credibility, and the trustworthiness of the ideas/facts being presented to them. They must be convinced of the sincerity of your pronouncements, that what you say is of benefit to them.

 

Bruce’ Speech – Hollow and Incomplete

The nation is hungry for hope and direction, especially within the current context what PM Golding himself declared, as serious global challenges – food insecurity, rising oil prices and the persistent inflation crisis. The decay within our own Jamaican society is so deep, the social crisis so extensive that the people became convinced that the ‘course must change’. Throughout the 2007 national election campaign, Bruce Golding and the Jamaica Labour Party painted a persuasive picture of 18 years of utter and total disaster. The JLP successively drove home the failures of the People’s National Party to accomplish anything of benefit to the Jamaican people. And many Jamaicans bought wholesale into the notion that the society is effectively at square one.

 

It therefore follows that having suffered for 18 years the disaster which was the PNP, and having had 18 years to prepare perhaps the most significant speech of his career, many people, including myself expected to hear a new vision articulated. I waited to hear the PM’s outlining a direction for the country, not only economically but socially and culturally. I waited to hear Bruce Golding’s vision of what this new society would look like, a mental picture of the society he says he wants to help to build. I waited to get a sense of how we may get there. I am a young Jamaican of 32 years, and so I waited to have my hope renewed in Jamaica. What I heard was uninspiring. I heard a mechanical delineation of budgetary allocations, unconnected to an overarching philosophical or political framework. I heard an almost perfunctory description of increased allowances, promises tantamount to ‘political handouts’, done in a vaguely covert spirit of political point scoring.

 

There were positives …

There were many positives initiatives and suggestions announced by the Prime Minister. These must be acknowledged, and also taken into its correct context. The broadening of the PATH programme to include a great number of beneficiaries, increases in the Minimum Wage by some 16 per cent, increases in financial assistance to students, increase in benefits under the National Insurance Scheme (NIS) and increases in allowances paid to special needs people. The PM also reiterated the government’s abolition of user fees in health institutions, abolition of tuition fees as well as the 500b spent to subsidise prices on basic food items. The new government’s renewed focus on agriculture, energy conservation as well as finding new energy sources are commendable. The Prime Minister’s interest in continuing the Justice Reform programme, which was introduced by the PNP administration, is a vital announcement. Affording the Police Commissioner increased autonomy, as well as legislative steps aimed at strengthening the investigative and prosecutorial of the country’s judicial system are important components in the fight against crime.

 

So is his suggested willingness to upload discussions concerning political party financing onto the parliamentary agenda. The latter is a longstanding issue, long overdue but highly relevant to the quality of our electoral democracy. That Prime Minister Bruce Golding also acknowledged the supremacy of the constitution with regard to the recent ruling of the Supreme Court in the election petition against West Portland Member of Parliament, Daryl Vaz, and the precedent it set for other MP’s on his side of the House is to be acknowledged. It must be difficult as a first time Prime Minister to be faced with the kinds of challenges that Bruce Golding particularly has since taking his seat in a Parliament in which he holds only a whisker of a majority. 

 

It is, however, important to place these positives into their proper context. If we don’t, we run the risk of getting carried by away by expected budgetary pronouncements, and fail to identify the extent to which these developments are tied to an overall improvement in the lives of the citizenry. The PM’s Budget speech instead assumed an economy reductionist approach to Jamaica’s deep seated problems. In other words, the speech presumes that if you fix the economy, then everything else will fall into place. Jamaica’s problems go beyond the economy and so do the solutions. Indeed, in his stampede to parallel the social justice agenda of former PNP President and Prime Minister, Michael Manley, and, like former JLP leader Edward Seaga before him, attempt to sweep that agenda social justice agenda from under the PNP, the Hon Bruce Golding seems to have confused ‘growth’ with ‘development’.

Simply growing the economy is, however, not tantamount to development. It therefore follows that abolishing user fees in health institutions in health institutions is not the same as providing quality health care in an atmosphere where patients feel cared for. Abolishing tuition fees is not the same as providing quality education, producing first class graduates, creating an atmosphere where teachers feel respected, where violence is not the order of the day. Whereas bringing more people into the PATH programme and increasing their allowance is welcoming as it may be able to fetch them an additional item at the supermarket per week, it does not change people’s overall standard of living. It does not change their quality of life.

 

Introducing casino gambling may indeed $US1 billion dollars into the Jamaican economy, but it may expand the negative social trends in a society already disintegrating under the burdens of social decay. These initiatives will have to be carefully regulated in order not to create more problems that it solves. In the same breath, to distribute building permits like confetti – in the name of development and job creation– as Prime Minister Golding seems to propose, is blatantly at odds with the government’s desire to protect the natural environment. What we in Jamaica often see as “unused land”, many other cultures (such as environmentally conscious and focused New Zealand) sees as retaining the integrity of the land. Indeed, serious flooding in Ocho Rios is appearing to be a real example of the detriments posed by such an angular view of development. In short, throwing money around will not go very far at solving the fundamental social problems that Jamaica has. This is because the beast we are fighting is not just physical poverty but a fundamental poverty of the mind.  

 

Biggest Gap in the Budget

There were a few gaps in this budget. The absence of a real discussion of crime – the dominant concern for Jamaicans, was, in my view, the biggest gaping hole in Bruce Golding’s presentation. The Prime Minister spent approximately 3 minutes flagging some issues in the crime agenda, yet he droned on for about 20-25 minutes in defense of his decisions regarding the firing of the former members of the Public Service Commission. This blatantly exposed the real priorities of the Government in this new dispensation.  The fundamental catastrophe which is crime requires a meaningful address from the new government, not a few passing sentences arriving at page 28 and some 3 plus hours late in a four hour speech. A mere flagging of planned legislative changes, continuing justice reform and creating autonomy for the Commissioner is a far departure from what a people expect from its Prime Minister is his critical first speech, and in a context where 1500 of our citizens are slaughtered every year. I expected to hear how the new government intends to address attitudinal issues, declining norms and the constant assault on the values of decency and discipline throughout the society. 2007 exposed in the most elemental way, that we do not speak in the same language concerning fundamental concerns – human rights, crime and justice. There is no consensus on what it means to be a Jamaican, our obligations and duties. In other words, we exist at war with ourselves and a house divided against itself cannot stand. No concern for these fundamental issues was outlined or hinted at by the Hon. Prime Minister.

 

The Prime Minister, however, premised his discussion on the troubles of inflation, and food insecurity which plague even highly industrialized societies such Sweden, Australia etc. This is a false veil. PM Bruce Golding knows fully that the success of societies such as India, China and Russia is not simply based on an economic strategy but premised on a deep sense of order and discipline, a highly developed work force, high rates of literacy, technical and social skills as well as a deep sense of service and a highly developed work ethic. There was also no mention made about the youth except handing out cash to them, no mention of the potential economic benefits of the creative industries and no mention of the continuing value of tourism in a global economy largely serviced based.

 

Cassava Politics

Whereas a stronger focus on agriculture and calls for an increase in domestic food production is, for me, one of the highlights of the PM’s presentation, there can be no bonus points for this announcement. A focus on agriculture is not an extraordinary proposition. The government is simply responding to a global situation which demands this very obvious response. It begs the question however: was it not for America emphasizing a potential food crisis etc, would the government’s concern be agriculture? That we imported almost all our food is certainly not exclusive to Jamaica. America imports most of its food. Since the late 1980’s, many developing countries were dragged kicking and screaming into an increasingly competitive global economy. Agriculture took a battering from post GATT agreements where it became cheaper to access imported food. It was/is expensive to eat locally produced items.  The global emphasis  also naturally and logically shifted since the early 1990s to service based economies premised on human capital and industries such as tourism, information technology and the creative industries.  Many countries, including Jamaica, wanted to be on this bandwagon.

 

Had it not been seen as a desperate necessity, would the JLP opt now to sell the virtues of farming to our people? Many people will recall that self-reliance became a despised idea, a ‘communist’ notion, particularly for those who opposed the radical ideas of Michael Manley.  To now shove ‘cassava’ down the throats of a people already conditioned to the consumption of imported grains is hollow politics. In just the same as the PNP myopically rendered tourism the monocrop of the 1990s, so is the government’s proposition of almost a wholesale return to agriculture a myopic solution. If Bruce Golding led government fails to invoke the revenue earning potential of the creative industries, tourism, technology services etc, and instead drives only the agriculture train, we run the risk of replacing the previous monocrop – tourism, with the original monocrop – agriculture.

 

Mind you, nothing is wrong with renewing our focus on agriculture and feeding ourselves. No one can argue against the positives of the government’s proposition in this regard. However, the problem has never been that we do not produce enough of our own food to feed ourselves. The fact is that we have not been able to produce or offer quality at an affordable rate. Poor quality, unattractive packaging (check the local carrots in your supermarket, and let me know if those things are fit for human consumption) and the fact that we have continuously out priced the poor, means that foreign goods will always be the ones rolled outside in the trolley when we go grocery shopping. A focus on agriculture will have to address our embedded culture of materialism in which agriculture is a dirty busy; it must address contingencies for drought, natural disasters, praedial larceny, poor quality products, poor packaging and expensive costs for local produce. Indeed, if PM Golding is truly serious about a return to agriculture, there would be no stampede to assist one small pig farmer to secure lands, but a comprehensive programme to assist all small farmers who face challenges. Political public relations have no place in a budget presentation. That kind of politicking must be reserved for the campaign trail.

 

Conclusion: When a passing grade of 60% means failure

Asked by Breakfast Club host, Professor Trevor Munroe, how we would rate Prime Minister, Bruce Golding out of ten, with one being the lowest and ten, the highest, I offered Bruce a 6.5/10. Political Analyst and Editor of the Western Mirror Newspaper, Lloyd B. Smith also graded the PM budget speech a 6/10. By any standards, this is an unsatisfactory performance but not a failure. This grade, which, in my view was the fairest I could muster, means that the PM’s ideas were too scattered, unconnected to an overarching vision of where he wants to take the country. As the driver, there was no direction, no destination, and a failure to determine how we may get there.

 

For those commentators you insist that the Prime Minister’s vision was already outlined in his campaign manifesto, I reiterate this point: the campaign Manifesto of the People’s National Party and the Jamaica Labour Party is a particular document created for a particular election purpose. It is not extensively read, it will not have the reach and power as an annual Budget Speech, especially one from a new government who had been out of power for eighteen years. As a communications specialist who has written many a political document and speeches on behalf of governments and political organisations, I will also say this: good ideas can and ought to be repeated wherever the opportunity arises. If nothing else, it underlines your commitment to them.  Other commentators felt that the Prime Minister could not have presented the ‘nuts and bolts’ and a ‘vision’ in the same speech. My response is, and will always be ‘why not’? Nevertheless, in my view, the budget presentation fell flat both in terms of  ‘nuts and bolts’ (manifested in specific plans and time lines for their achievements and how they may be funded), and it fell down significantly in its charting of our course for the country’s future.

 

Putting people at the centre of governance is more than handing out cash to them. It means creating an improved quality of life for them, restoring their hope in the future of their country and inviting their full participation in the decision making process outside of the voting booth every five years. Prime Minister Bruce Golding is fully aware that his debut budget presentation arrived at an unprecedented moment in our political history, when party’s hold on power is, at best, feeble. He walked a tightrope on Tuesday (April 22, 2008) between political point scoring and demonstrating that he is a leader of a nation. His statesman eloquence vaguely disguised his politicking. Like I said at the outset, a disappointing debut ride for the man who claims to be the ‘The Driver”.

 

 

 

PNP cannot celebrate – Vaz ruling is hollow victory.

If I were Darly Vaz, Member of Parliament for West Portland, I would be ashamed and guilt-ridden. Vaz had two cases against him – one a constitutional matter, and the other, a criminal matter. His possession of dual citizenship (American and Jamaican) was found to be in breach of Section 40 (2) of the Jamaican constitution. The ruling means that Darly Vaz is no longer eligible to be a member of the Cabinet. Indeed, his nomination as a candidate at the September 3 elections was seen to be redundant.  The criminal case against him is still pending.

In other jurisdictions, one would not need to take a public servant to court on clear matters of breach. A sitting Member of Parliament, obviously committed to his constituents, should be equally committed to his country and its laws – its Constitution. Surely, upon being sworn in as a member of the Jamaican parliament, Vaz would have sworn, among other things, to respect the Constitution. Of course, I am the first one to say that you need not hang out in Jamaica to prove your patriotism or commitment. The majority of Jamaicans live at home, and only a handful aren’t merely spectators in their own society. I believed Darly Vaz when he spoke during the election campaign period. His flaws notwithstanding, I believe that his commitment to his country is genuine. But that is besides the point in this matter.

The Jamaican constitution must be upheld. Or be rid of it. Politicians (and other public servants) who find themselves in breach of the constitution must, publicly, rectify their positions. Or stand down. The same rule must also apply to the ordinary citizen. Flout the law and suffer the consequences. Indeed, as former Prime Minister of Jamaica, PJ Patterson proclaims some years ago, ‘the law is not a shackle to enslave … it is a tool of social engineering’.

Although the Prime Minister’s remarks then were conveniently and farcically taken out of context by segments of a sensationalist media hungry for controversy, the point is that the law serves to support social order and prevent social disintegration. Enforcing the law and applying it equally creates and fosters general equality.  One need not study sociology to know that judgements pass down in one case, and made public, either underscores and reinforces the regulations by which a society is guided  or establishes that the social order requires remodelling. The fundamental tenets by which a society orders itself must be upheld and enforced in order to retain their relevance.

For the above reasons, I believe that, in principle, attorney-at-law, Abe Dabdoub, the man who lost the seat to Darly Vaz in West Portland – and the party he represents, the PNP, are absolutely correct in bringing forward a case of breach to the Constitution. At the same time, the landmark ruling in the dual citizenship case brought against Darly Vaz is a much more complex phenomenon than stated here. Indeed, the underlying political motives and objectives which triggered this case, and its meanings for those involved, and the consequences for Jamaica and Jamaicans (including those who live and work overseas) requires an entire book to explain. (I really do hope our historians are taking notice and making the requisite record of this moment. We are without question living and experiencing history.  Sadly, so much of our contemporary lived experienced is ignored by an intellectual class merely content on rethinking the past).

That matters such as the dual citizenship debacle nature had not arisen before is phenomenal, given the number of elections that had been held in the post independence period in Jamaica. Election results, however, were never this close. Never before had the contest for power been so desperate. Had the Jamaica Labour Party lost another election, they would have been made redundant. Their raison d’etre would have been nullified. They would have perhaps hung themselves. On the other hand, had the PNP not taken for granted its contituents longstanding loyalty; had it not abused and misused its power; had it not bartered its place and power in the Jamaican psyche for misguided populism, it would not have to rely on the Courts to hand it political power.

For those naive enough to think otherwise, make no mistake – the unconsitutionality of Vaz (and others) retaining membership in the House of Parliament, would appear to be the secondary motive in this case; the primary being what the landmark ruling may demand – and as in fact implies – a nullified West Portland seat, a second chance for the PNP (or at least some members) to right what it felt was a wrong against it. Very few people will argue against the principle here, but the motives seem suspect.

For what purpose, then, is the the Jamaican judicial system to be used? Is it to be used to defend, on behalf of the citizenry, genuine breaches of law. Or might it be used to used deceptively to win political power. Political power must be won through the ballot. It ought to be won through the voters’ belief in party policies, their sympathy for political causes, their love of the personalities and their commitment to a national vision, embedded in the vision they have for themselves, their quality of life, and the kind of society they wish to live in. It ought not to be secured through politicking – even if the politicking takes place, in principle, within the courts.

Again, I reiterate that breaches of the Constitution are grave issues which cannot be taken lightly. If public servants do not adhere to the Constitution by which they all swear, then who shall? Prime Minister Bruce Golding, and the sitting JLP administration are obliged to adhere to the court ruling, in principle. This is even while they may be fully convinced that this matter has very little to do with principle.

Civic Hypocrisy and Dancehall

I decided to revisit the topic of the dancehall since it appears that the received belief in Jamaica is that veteran journalist, Ian Boyne, sits in splendid isolation in his sharp critique of dancehall music culture. Ian is not,  but the matter of the bastardisation of dancehall – as I prefer to see it – goes much deeper than current ideas floating around. I introduce some of these other layers in  a 2004 article published in The Jamaica Gleaner. I reproduce this below: Feel free to comment.

Civic hypocrisy and dancehall
published: Jamaica Gleaner, Sunday | October 10, 2004
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20041010/focus/focus2.html

Hume N. Johnson, Contributor

IN ITS stampede to stand as guardians of civil leadership and to install civility in dancehall music culture, corporate Jamaica has exposed its own civic hypocrisy. For the last 30 years, dancehall music, in reproducing and “re-presenting” the socio-economic and political conditions at work in the Jamaican society, has given lyrical endorsement to violence, materialism, narcissism, homophobia and misogyny. For the same time span, it has been corporate funds, which have partially driven the success of many dancehall events and the present hegemony of a negative dancehall discourse.

Today, Jamaican bottled drink, telephone and lately furniture and financial companies are stumbling over themselves to have dancehall artistes add their fame and personality to company brands and products and to lend their talent to the multiplicity of profit-inducing events staged within and by the corporate arena.

Despite public displays of vulgarity, indecent language and lyrics that offend the toughest female sensibility and make a mockery of attempts to rid the society of crime and violence, artistes such as Baby Cham, Beenie Man and Elephant Man remain the voices and symbols of Jamaican corporate firms, too obvious to mention.

Two events/incidents stand out in my mind as evidence of corporate Jamaica’s civic ambivalence. The first is ‘Red Stripe Reggae Sumfest’ and its promiscuous relationship with the event billed on their roster as ‘Dancehall Nite’. Having previously expelled ‘Conscious Night’, which usually displays the talent of artistes of Rastafarian orientation from its roster, Sumfest, a few years ago made way for a double dosage of ‘Dancehall Nite’.

DANCEHALL GENRE

This is not because they love dancehall music or wish to interface with its emissaries. But what else attracts the biggest crowds in Jamaica but dancehall music, particularly when it exhibits riotous indecency and vulgarity? It has never mattered to promoters that some of the artistes billed for these events are known contributors to what I call a ‘bastardisation’ of the dancehall genre. A simple process of sifting and contractual savvy could have prevented the widespread vulgarity displayed by several artistes during their onstage performances at successive Sumfest shows.

One would have thought that such shameful incidents would have sounded trumpets of civility from all sections of society and bellowed to the private sector to check the events they lend their brands to and the values they honour. Instead, corporate Jamaica responded in characteristic silence.

The second is the ‘Magnum’ Sting Affair of 2003 which saw dancehall artistes wreaking foul language on the ears of citizen patrons of the dancehall and engaging in a public fist fight onstage. Civil society lashed out at the entertainers and the Government and rendered patrons who had the nerve to attend such sessions as supporters of incivility. Some media commentators finally found fodder for their contempt for a sector of the Jamaican citizenship classed as bhuttos. This is while corporate Jamaica once again cowardly retreated in silence.

REBEL SALUTE

The hypocrisy becomes ashamedly blatant when artistes with a markedly positive image are not allowed to feed from the endorsement tree and reggae events, which celebrate the healthier aspects of Jamaica’s music product, are hard-pressed to attract corporate sponsorship of the sort accorded to ‘Red Stripe Reggae Sumfest’. I draw Tony Rebel as an example. His refusal to sell alcohol or to encourage its consumption at his reggae festival, dubbed Rebel Salute, has resulted in corporate Jamaica turning a consistently blind-eye to this event. I therefore applaud Cable and Wireless and Capital and Credit Merchant Bank for their boldness in the last two years in going against the prevailing grain. I am not here in clique with the ’separatists’ who not only make a sharp differentiation between dancehall and reggae but attempt to rank one music genre above the other.

In their pursuit of civility, corporate Jamaica, inhabited by middle class snobs and alongside their counterparts in academia, the Church and some sections of media, has been the biggest separatists of this country’s people. For them, the dancehall is a domain inhabited by uneducated bhuttos, lacking in politeness, enlightenment and refinement and dancehall music, save when it issues from the mouths of Shaggy and Sean Paul, is not ‘real music’. The marked distinctions some of this elite sect make between Shaggy/Sean Paul and the ‘other’ ghettoites from Kingston’s slums clashes with their desire to be seen among the African elements in the slums at ‘Passa Passa’ on Wednesday nights. So what should we make of corporate Jamaica’s latest stunt to demand civility of others before they display it themselves?

Mind you, the increased levels of crassness, aggression and violence being presented as entertainment by artistes on stage, re-presented to us through media and unreservedly endorsed by corporate Jamaica, is no longer about counting the chickens coming home to roost. It means that there is a radical revolution taking place in our values and the way we order the society. These fundamental shifts in values and behavioural norms are not the reserve of dancehall artistes and musicians but are occurring at all levels of the society, across all institutions and within all social and political domains of our society. This recognition requires that we undertake a re-evaluation of our self-image in line with our changing condition.

The same dynamics of change must also compel corporate firms to re-evaluate their self-image, disable themselves of the sort of ‘master race’ psychology, which causes them to detach themselves from the happenings in the dancehall body and the society below Cross Roads.

HUGE PROFITS

In other words, to win credibility, corporate Jamaica cannot detach itself from the decadence in an entertainment industry it supports and from which it garners huge profits. It cannot expect to place its dollar to artistes, activities and events which degrade women, celebrate badmanism and glorify violence and then withdraw in moral panic, covering their guilt with a signed memorandum. If the aim is to integrate their defiant dancehall others in a moral community fashioned by the middle class, they would have failed without even beginning. It behooves this private sector realm to understand that this Dancehall genre they distance themselves from possess a significant youth following within which is the source of the greatest value change taking place in Jamaica.

VULGARITY ENTRENCHED

We have long allowed vulgarity and incivility to fester and become an entrenched aspect of our cultural discourse. Where our citizens have not acted, our artistes have rushed in and have become our unapologetic spokespersons. Where our people have been dispossessed of their voice or offer it up willingly, it has been our artistes, (dancehall and roots reggae) which have been our social commentators. In the face of a sedated civil society, our artistes have unconsciously become our political negotiators. We need not romanticise them. Many like myself have found it difficult to locate the artistry in the advocacy of intolerance, hate and violence.

However, let us not pretend that their vociferous rejection of homosexuality is a radical departure from our collective perspective. To call for death, murder and mayhem, whether lyrically, physically or metaphorically is wrong but their generation-old celebration of all forms of violence is merely a reflection of a violent culture and an uncivil discourse in which we are all complicit. However, our historical tolerance for such decay must now be exhausted. This rebellion against ourselves and the society has left a gulf of fear, hostility, mutual misunderstanding and contempt among our citizens.

The solution is not to shun dancehall music. Dancehall represents the vibrancy and confidence of this country and its people. History will not applaud civic sanctimoniousness or acclaim for singers and players of instruments who insist on abusing and misusing their gift. There can be no applause, at least not while the media and corporate power brokers continue to be the master who hold the whip that forces our artistes into these meaningless roles. The negative about our music rings loudly and the objective is not to defend it but because the negativity speaks so loudly and has persisted for so long, we are all exposed as justifiers of decadence.

The quality and stability of our society is likely to be continuously affected by the challenges arising from uncivil elements within our civil society. It is therefore crucial for those of us working for a more ‘civil’ society to recognise that a civil society cannot exist without civil values and attitudes because civility depends on behaviour, attitudes and institutions that only civil society can create.

Brand Jamaica = Brand Incivility

Brand Jamaica = Brand Incivility
Published: Jamaica Gleaner, Monday | March 3, 2008
http://www.jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20080303/news/news6.html

Dr Hume Nicola Johnson, Contributor

Boorishness, from playing loud music to jostling to enter a bus, has helped reaffirm Brand Incivility which has tarnished Jamaica’s image, Dr Hume argues. – Norman Grindley/Deputy Chief Photographer

New Zealand, the country in which I have lived for the past four years, says it will not send its netballers to Jamaica because of fears for their safety. Recently, the Economist magazine wrote about the ’sun, sea and crime’ in Jamaica. We are now known as much for an exciting culture and beautiful scenery as much as we are for crime and violence. I call it crime tourism and at home it’s Brand Incivility.

But having witnessed and been a victim of crime myself in the United States and in beautiful and civilised Aotearoa (New Zealand) where my purse was stolen), I begin this article with a caveat. Every society, past or present, has illustrated tendencies to violence and intolerance that contradict the ideal notion of civil society as a haven of openness, non-violence tolerance and altruistic citizens working for the ‘common good’. In Jamaica, embedded and blatant incivility has always lurked behind the call and desire for a more civil society.

Civil society is itself not all virtuous. In the first place, its network of associations is cast so wide, it automatically and unwittingly embraces criminals, hate groups and extremists, as well as tendencies and practices that constitute everything civility is not. There are groups in Jamaica which skirt the boundaries between legal and extralegal behaviour. Civil society contains both civil and uncivil actors, and legal and extralegal practices, processes and dimensions. This has led to confusion over its meaning and, in contexts such as Jamaica, may trigger doubts over its usefulness as a force for societal transformation. The following is the reason.

Just three months into 2008 and we are already obliged to come to terms with the familiar, but stark reality – the predominance of disorder and incivility over order and civility in many of our social spaces and institutions – schools, politics, streets and within homes. Disorder won out in 2007: More than 1,500 of our citizens, including 20 policemen, were slaughtered; young schoolkids mirrored the society’s example of violence and attacked each other while their classmates watched, cheered and captured the violence on cellular phones; schoolgirls had sex on buses, and at one Clarendon school protested their right to break the school rules. The television media sanctioned their indiscipline by providing coverage; violence and vulgarity reigned in our music, was reproduced on radio, and in the dancehall, and defended by our intellectuals. Our people lived free of accountability, and showed disregard for the trappings of modern social control, and our politicians accommodated thugs, fostered violence and provoked tribal divisions among the citizenry in their quest for political power.

Violence, the national language

We accept violence as normal. Our language is that of hate and violence. The way we played, told our jokes, our sense of self was imbued with the language of hate and violence. Words are meant for us to communicate. Language is meant to be a beautiful thing. Instead, we use language as weapons to injure, condemn and attack. In politics, disagreement between opponents is the sign of a healthy and flourishing democracy. Not so in a culture already as violent as ours. The bickering and the smear campaigns during the 2007 election and the deepening of the boorishness and cass-cass after the election, and which still continues, are exhausting and a poor example to our people. It means that civil society cannot still depend on political leaders to lead us into constructive dialogue. Yet, it is from within civil society – albeit not a cure-all – that we must look for hope and transformation.

Role of Civil Society

We always knew that there was an absence of strong and genuine political leadership in Jamaica, but never before has this crisis of leadership across all the domains of the society been so obvious. There is a curious silence about the role of civil society – the musicians, the social networks, the Church, the community groups and the media.

Civility is about demonstrating respect for others. Civility is the common language of communicating respect for one another. Offering your seat to a lady or an older person is your way of communicating respect for them. Civility also means self-regulation, holding back in the pursuit of your own self-interest, for the sake of living in harmony with others. So if playing your music loudly is how you get your groove on, realise that this may be a disturbance to your neighbour. Civility also relates to public behaviour – not blaring music loudly on buses and not using profanity.

Civility does not mean respect and sympathy only towards specific people, but having generalised empathy for all those who share the society with us. Civility must be returned to the conduct of citizen politics.

A House Divided

One of the challenges with accomplishing this sense of civility is that we don’t have a shared sense of values which define us as a people. For example, we are not yet united on the idea that there should be respect for the freedom and dignity of the individual. Some of us believe criminals should be executed; they should get no rights. Some of us believe gays should be murdered. They have no rights. Yet, this same section of the community will claim to support human rights, but only in the sense that the police officer should not draw his weapon in the performance of his duty.

We are not all united in our commitment to the rule of law. We are at war with the rule of law. Citizens have withdrawn from participation in crime fighting because they feel it is the Government’s responsibility.

We are also not united in showing compassion for those in need. We remain in deep disagreement over these values, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

Role of the State

Civil society is not at war with the state but deeply depends on its efficient performance and accountability. Civil values are so fundamental to the kind of society we want. Innovative public policy initiatives by the Government can go a long way in promoting civil virtues and values in Jamaica. Civic education is required and the avenues through which this can be done are fairly obvious. Schools have a pivotal role to play in any initiative to strengthen civil norms. Countries such as Australia and New Zealand have, for example, developed a Values and Attitudes Survey which measures or tracks the social and moral development of the students. The benefit of this is that you get a sense of the attitudes and core character of students long before behavioural problems arises.

Civics is no longer a compulsory element of the school curriculum, but it should be returned to the school curriculum because it’s an introduction to responsible citizenship. If a child drops out of school at age 12 or 15, at the very least, he or she would have already learned what it means to be a responsible citizen. This is because they would have learned tolerance, respect for opposing positions and the views of others, a willingness to abide by rules and regard for the institutions in the society. In other words, they would be less inclined to forfeit their ’social contract’ with the state.

More Self-Regulation

The police and other guardians of the law are essential to any programme to renew public civility. The current resort by some police officers to unlawful behaviour in the pursuit of order is a huge hurdle to the overall objective of creating a civil society. There is also, in my view, an overreliance on the police to regulate behaviour. A civil society would be one where citizens engage in self-regulation. This means abiding by the laws, acting civilly and doing the right thing so as to reduce the incidents where the police must employ force.

Entertainers must heed the critique of the many voices urging them to take stock of the messages they disseminate and see their roles more in line with responsible citizenship. We now exist too close to the edge not to care or to be mere contributors to the problem.

The country’s music product has always been a reaction to society and reggae artistes have helped to articulate the concerns and grievances of the poor and often mount a lyrical counter-war against an oppressive power structure. However, Jamaica’s contemporary (reggae versus dancehall) music culture transmits intensely violent and antagonistic values and norms, leading to the development of an ambiguous social language inimical to civility. Current research into this arena only renders passing commentary on this development and so it is worthy of critical exploration.

As citizens, we are obliged to participate in the process of governance in our country. Many of our citizens are too comfortable with being mere spectators in their own society. The media are obliged to play a more active, educational role. In the same breath, there are many fair-minded, responsible thinking citizens so there is still hope. Politicians and the police can’t and won’t do everything. We can no longer escape our part in the struggle.

The response of the State and of civil society to this spectre of chaos is crucial.

Dr Hume Nicola Johnson, a broadcaster, holds a PhD in political science and public policy from the University of Waikato in New Zealand and has published on the challenges to civil society and governance in Jamaica. Email humepela@gmail.com.

Civil Society’s Campaign Against the Mafia in Italy: Lessons for Jamaica?

Head, N’Drangheta – the Italian Mafia network in Calabria, Pasquale Condello, captured here in Feb 2008. Condello was one of the last major mob bosses on the run.

Since the late 1980s, the Italian state mounted a serious challenge to the Mafia, manifested in state crackdown and legislative moves aimed at crippling its power bases. Mafiosi in retaliation launched a counter attack against the Italian state by brutally slaying of high court judges, Giovanni Facolne and Paolo Borsellino in Sicily, widely known for their stance against the Mafia.

The ensuing war between the Mafia and the state, as well as increasing infighting between rivalling Mafia ‘families’ generated a palpable exhaustion with ‘mob’ violence among the Italian public and a powerful resentment against the Mafia, even from within its own ranks. These were the embryonic stages of what was to be a powerful anti-mafia movement (see Johnson & Soeters, 2008).

Although oftentimes de-emphasised in scholarly assessments of the reasons behind mafia decline, a resurrected civil society in Italy coincided with developing civil movements worldwide and an ethical and civil progression (see Kaldor, 2003; Kymlicka, 2001; Fabj, 1998), creating room for mob-exhausted Italians to act.

This strong anti-Mafia social movement, consisting of an expanding urban and educated middle class as well as ordinary citizens, many of whom lived under the sphere of influence of Mafia government, contributed to the defeat of the Mafia. Noteworthy is the role of women in this regard. In a courageous act during the height of Mafia power in Sicily, for example, one Sicilian woman scrawled anti-mafia slogans on a bed sheet and hung it from her window. Others joined in and soon the vast majority of the city’s women residents were hanging bed sheets. This movement became known as the Committee of the Sheets (or Cloths).

Thanks to widespread popular support, the ‘Women of the Cloths’ and other collectivities of citizens led by women mounted a raft of spontaneous protests, including marches, sit-ins and demonstrations. Among the numerous demonstrations was also a group called ‘Women of the Fasting’. These women started a hunger strike in the mid-July Italian heat to demand, among other things, the resignation of those responsible for the breaches in security and failure in protection which led to the death of Judges, Falcone and Borsellino.

The Association of Women against the Mafia in Palermo also came to play an important role in the growing anti- Mafia movement.  This association of women had already existed in the city of Palermo and its membership primarily included the widows of judges, police chiefs and lawyers assassinated in the line of duty, including Rita Borsellino – the sister of one of slain judge, Paolo Borsellino. The association regularly sent delegations to the Italian government in Rome to demand stronger political action against the Mafia, for which they won popular support and sympathy. The courage to defy the Mafia and the code of ‘omerta’ was strengthened by the increasing number of female mayors that have been elected in Sicily’s country side over the last few years (see Schneider & Schneider, 2003, pp. 294-295; Fabj, 1998, p. 205). The progressive ideas of these women not only proved to be unfertile grounds for a flourishing of the Mafia, but set in train the flourishing of other organisations within civil society determined to fight the Mafia (see Johnson& Soeters, 2008).

One of the most powerful and effective efforts of a reawakened Italian civil society was the fight against extortion – the area where the Mafia wielded power and earned the bulk of their wealth. The battle against extortion was fought on many fronts. For example, in 2004, a group of youths who wanted to open a pub and faced the fierce hand of extortionists, launched the “Addiopizzo Movement” (Goodbye Protection Money). Plastering the city of Palermo anti-pizzo flyers – “A people who pay the pizzo are a people without dignity”, the Addiopizza movement brings together large businesses in Palermo to collectively refuse to pay protection money. They eventually brought their campaign online and it struck a profound chord with Sicilians. 320 big businesses have so far signed up (San Francisco Chronicle, 2008, January 20). In 2006, another anti-extortion group calling itself ‘Youths Against Extortion’ took the Addiopizzo movement to another level by leading protests against extortion practices which were threatening small shop owners. This move was supported by the European Union which funds billboards against Mafia practices. One of them reads – ‘Contro l’estorsione nonsei solo’ (Against extortion, you are not alone).

The anti-extortion movement is effectual because it is bolstered by strong support from an industrialists lobby – Confindustria, and tougher legislative action from the Italian state. Whereas the industrialist lobby threatens to expel members who pay protection money, the Italian state intensified the pressure on business owners who pay extortion, prosecuting those who refuse to give testimony in clear cut cases of extortion. Under Italian law, a businessman who denies ‘paying up’ despite flagrant evidence can be charged with aiding and abetting the Cosa Nostra. Importantly, the state now claims that the victims of extortion can trust the police and the judiciary to protect them.

Although extortion practices continue to exist in Sicily and other regions in southern Italy, these are, nonetheless interesting developments, which illustrate that a powerful civil society had taken an active role in Italy and through unified, collective action, had successfully effected a real cultural revolt against the Mafia. The Italian case is evidence of the existence of a plurality of cultures, not all of which are mafia–friendly, even in regions renown for mafia ‘infestation’.

It is worthy of note, however, that alongside this effective anti-Mafia movement led by civil society, particularly women, was inspired police and judicial investigations which traced dirty money, found witnesses and uncovered criminality. In other words, a strengthened and professionalized police force, and political will were effective weapons against the Mafia, and the evidence of success was everywhere: many Mafiosi, including ‘top brass’ Godfathers were prosecuted and sentenced to tens of years of imprisonment. For example, arrests for membership in a Mafia-type organization increased from 874 in 1991 to a record high of 2136 in 1994, still being high at 1324 in 1997 (Jamieson, 2000, p. 231).

The vigilance and the urgency with which the Italian authorities want to terminate the impact of criminal power on the country continue to be evident: The arrest of Mafia capo Bernardo Provenzano in March 2006 – after having been wanted by the police for more than forty years; 38 arrests were made in a Sicilian anti-Mafia sweep in December 2007; And in February 2008, head of the N’Drangheta – the Italian Mafia network in Calabria, Pasquale Condello, was captured. Condello was one of the last major mob bosses on the run. Due to the consolidated efforts of civic groups, the Mafia’s once secure connections with Italian politics has also come under greater public scrutiny, contributing to the fall of once powerful politicians, such as former Prime Minister, Andreotti. 

Unquestionably, the situation is still precarious: extortion practices continue and the Mafia’s international and transnational linkages are still viable and continue to spread all over the globe. Mafiosi still try to seek political allies, and experts believe the Italian Mafia may rise again, if the current antimafia climate becomes less repressive (e.g. Jamieson, 2000).  Nonetheless, important results have been achieved: the Mafia has been ‘extinguished as a major actor in the United States’ criminal world’ (Reuter, 1995, p. 89), whereas in the eyes of many international leaders, Palermo, Sicily’s capital city, has become a global model and a promising if tenuous success story for antimafia (Schneider & Schneider, 2003, pp. 284-288; p. 301).

What, if any, these developments hold for the prospects for degarrisonisation and anti-donmanship in Jamaica?
___________________________________________________________________________________
See my full article on this issue entitled Jamaican Dons, Italian Mafias and the Chances of a Reversible Destiny, In Political Studies, Vol  56 (1), March 2008, pp 166-193