The good and bad of political dynasties

Despite the continuity and party identity offered by family dynasties in Jamaican politics, former media manager and social commentator Kay Osborne believes they may create significant risks to democratic renewal, which she says must be a concern for a small, vulnerable democracy with substantial accountability challenges.

“Irrespective of which family, the recurring presence of some family names is likely to contribute to public cynicism and a feeling among citizens, particularly the youth, that the political system is not truly open to them. This could be among the reasons why voter turnout is extremely low and there is general distrust in democratic processes,” she posited in response to queries from The Gleaner.

According to her, a perceived failure to widen the pool of competitors limits “meritocracy, concentrating power, and stifling the emergence of fresh, diverse perspectives which challenge the very essence of democratic principles”.

“Dynastic politicians could well feel there is less need to be transparent, increasing the risk of corruption and abuse of power, especially if oversight mechanisms are weakened by familial ties and sheer political power …” she said, though not pointing an accusatory finger at any political family in particular.

Still, she has another concern.

“Also, the dynastic system has led to substantial power being concentrated within a few political families, and this tends to diminish accountability to the populace. This concentration of power risks creating an oligarchic system where a small elite dominates the political landscape, eventually weakening democratic institutions and reducing checks and balances.

The most well-known duo is that of Norman Manley and his son, Michael Manley, former heads of government and presidents of the People’s National Party (PNP).

No ideological differences except for Manleys’

The elder Manley is described as a revered founding father whose leadership was instrumental in Jamaica’s path to self-government and independence, laying the foundation for democratic institutions and promoting national development with mild democratic socialist leanings.

In a stark departure from his dad, Michael Manley charted a far more radical democratic socialist course in the 1970s than his father.

The Manley years led to crucial social justice reform programmes, and while the economy was crippled in the ideological warfare at the time, Michael Manley later demonstrated adaptability by shifting towards more market-friendly policies in the late 1980s. According to Osborne, “Michael Manley is the clearest example of an offspring charting a distinctly new ideological path”.

Except for the case of the Manleys, the children who have followed their parents into political leadership have yet to bring new ideologies to the table.

“While the Manleys have forged new ideological paths, the adherence of other dynastic families to their parents’ and party’s established ideologies may hinder innovation. The adoption of novel policies is crucial for addressing evolving societal challenges, and the potential for such innovation in Jamaican politics should be a source of hope for the future … ,” Osborne said.

Hammering home the point, she said Douglas Vaz was a prominent figure in the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) who was known for his strong pro-business and free-market orientation, which contributed to economic stabilisation efforts.

“His was a strong and raging, sustained voice against Michael Manley’s social justice programmes. His son, Daryl, focuses on contemporary issues, but his ideological alignment remains consistent with the JLP’s centre-right, pro-business framework. He has not demonstrated any ideological departure from his father’s foundational principles within the party … ,” she suggested.

University of the West Indies Professor of Political and Social Psychology Christopher Charles said he agreed with Osborne that the children benefit by having first dibs at political institutional knowledge and the dos and don’ts.

“With the foregoing and the inherited social networks and social capital, these political children are better able to leverage these things on behalf of the people, compared to a political newcomer without this family background … ,” Charles posited.

He argued that the country still has serious problems, which have retarded the economic growth and development of the country, “so we have not benefited as much from these processes as we could”.

Agreeing further with Osborne, he said that, except for the ideological demarcation between the Manleys, everybody else has toed the party lines.

“Nothing is wrong with toeing the party line if the party line is generating economic growth and development and creating a safe society. Party line for some is speaking with one voice, and working cohesively with party members, and not criticising the party publicly … ,” he told The Gleaner.

While some politicians are good at toeing the party line, he said “they are inefficient when it comes to generating economic growth and development and creating a safe society. Some politicians focusing more on party conventions than transformational politics has made the political system inefficient rather than weak.”

Political DNA Benefits

Such families contribute to continuity and stability, Osborne said, but the country must also “uphold fundamental democratic principles of equal opportunity and a dynamic, inclusive political landscape”.

“To some extent, the dynastic families have contributed to a sense of continuity and stability within the political system. Long-standing family involvement has fostered consistent party loyalty and reduced radical shifts in governance, offering a degree of predictability that some voters might appreciate … ,” Osborne posited.

Pointing to others, she said: “The political parties and the offsprings often benefit from institutional knowledge and experience that’s passed down from their parents. There is strong name recognition and often party loyalty.”

The main concern around political dynasties is that they appear to stifle meritocracy, she said.

“If political positions are perceived as inherited rather than earned, this is likely to discourage highly qualified individuals from entering politics, thereby limiting the diversity and talent pool of potential leaders.”

Another political dynasty is Pearts in Manchester – Ernest Peart and his sons Michael Peart and Dean Peart, who were each elected to Parliament.

Ernest Peart was the elected member of parliament for Manchester Western from 1959 to 1971, and served in the Manley administration of the 1970s as minister of labour and employment from 1972 to 1976 and minister of works from 1976 to 1978. He was high commissioner to London from 1978 to 1981.

Michael and Dean also became elected representatives in Manchester. Michael was member of parliament in Manchester Southern from 1993 to 2016, serving also as speaker of the House of Representatives from 2003-2007. Both himself and Dean, who represented Manchester North West until 2011, won five consecutive elections in their respective constituencies. Dean also served the Cabinet in various capacities – minister of labour; minister of environment and lands; and minister of local government.

Both have retired from politics.

Reverend Stanley Redwood is a former Senate president, teacher and social worker.

He believes in a ‘political gene’ which he says is not singular to politics, as it can be found in several other fields such as pastoral ministry, teaching, social work and even shopkeeping.

“My own father was also a political activist, a political organiser, and a political candidate. I didn’t go searching for politics, and politics was never on my youthful radar, but my political genes germinated post-30, and politics has become one of my most fulfilling, addictive and enduring social engagements,” he told The Gleaner.

He believes the political process benefits from institutional knowledge and name recognition among the younger generation, noting that “the quality of the political gene is more related to nurture than nature. While politicians might beget politicians, only honest politicians can raise honest politicians”.

Another notable political family tree is the Goldings of the JLP.

Tacius Golding was elected a member of the House of Representatives in 1949, and served continuously until 1972. He was speaker of the House of Representatives from 1962 to 1967. Bruce Golding was Jamaica’s eighth prime minister and his daughter, Sherene Golding Campbell, is a senator.

Jamaica’s political family trees also include Donald Buchanan and his son, Hugo Buchanan; Ryan Peralto and his son, Tarn Peralto; Gideon Aabuthnott-Gallimore, his son Neville Gallimore and Neville’s son, Andrew Gallimore, who were each elected to parliament.

Among the family lines currently represented in the House of Representatives are outgoing parliamentarian Dr Peter Phillips, who is a former president of the PNP, and his son, incumbent MP for Manchester North Western Mikael Phillips; as well as JLP incumbents Michelle Charles, of St Thomas Eastern, and Pearnel Charles Jr of Clarendon South Eastern, who are the daughter and son of former House Speaker Pearnel Charles.

erica.virtue@gleanerjm.com