Yesterday, September 18, the People's National Party celebrated 75 years since its launch in the Ward Theatre in downtown Kingston. While the PNP's first president was Norman Washington Manley, its real founder was Osmond Theodore Fairclough.
The PNP evolved from the National Reform Association, which was a group of citizens who were seeking self-government. That idea in itself was a very radical one in 1938. Even more radical was the idea that all adults should have right to vote, whether they owned land or not, paid taxes or not, whether they were rich or poor. And these became the aims of the PNP at its inception. In 1940, the PNP declared itself a socialist party.
Osmond Fairclough founded the newspaper Public Opinion in 1937, which would become the official organ of the PNP for its first 30 years of existence. Norman Manley, the successful lawyer, got involved in the social life of Jamaicans through the Jamaica Banana Producers Co-operative, for which he served as their lawyer.
The catalyst for the founding of the PNP was the labour riots in 1938. It was Fairclough who got the NRA, the Jamaica Agricultural Society, the Jamaica Teachers' Association and others together to form the PNP, including Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante. Yes, Bustamante was a member of the PNP and was on the platform at the Ward Theatre at its inception.
Bustamante was detained in 1940 under war regulations. The PNP kept the BITU alive while Bustamante was incarcerated. But when Bustamante was released in 1942 he accused the PNP of trying to take away the BITU from him and resigned from the PNP. One year later, he founded the JLP, which was really the political window of the BITU.
Norman Manley retired in February 1969. He was succeeded as PNP president by his son, Michael, who served as prime minister between 1972 and 1980 and between 1989 and 1992. P J Patterson succeeded Michael Manley as PNP president in 1992, who in turn was succeeded by current Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller in 2006.
At the first general election under Universal Adult Suffrage, in 1944, the PNP ran in 19 of the 32 seats available, but won only four and Norman Manley himself lost. The JLP led by Alexander Bustamante had won 23 seats and Independents won the other five. One of the independents, Fred "Slave Boy" Evans joined the PNP, which increased its number of seats to five.
The JLP campaign in 1944 denounced the PNP as a communist party that would share everything including the few things owned by the peasants, such as a few chickens and few goats. This campaign was very effective for the JLP.
By 1949, the PNP became a very organised party. In its evaluation of its defeat in 1944, it realised that because the JLP had the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union, there was a need for a strong trade union base for the PNP. So the Trades Union Advisory Council (a league of splinter trade unions founded in 1939) became the Trades Union Congress.
And by 1949, the PNP had become so organised (it was the only way to defeat Bustamante) that although the PNP lost again it received more votes than the JLP. And after 75 years of existence "practice makes perfect".
After two defeats in the 1960s (three if you count the September 1961 referendum -- 52 years ago today) the PNP did some serious introspection, so that by the time Norman Manley retired, they practically looked at who could win the elections not only in their choice of a party president but in their choice of candidates. Indeed today it is seen as part of the apparatus of good organisation, making adherence to its fundamental aims appear to be secondary to 'winability'.
In his book Struggle in the Periphery, Michael Manley wrote: "The PNP was always socialist in the sense that it never said it was not." But was the PNP ever really a socialist party? It is quite clear that throughout its history, the PNP would have among its senior leaders those who went along with socialism for reasons of party discipline rather than commitment.
This in part explains the expulsion of the Four Hs (Richard Hart, Arthur Henry, Ken Hill, and Frank Hill) in 1952 as communists. Were any of the Four Hs ever really communists, or were they wanted out of the way so that the PNP could bend its policies in the way of those who did not really want socialism? The TUC was disaffiliated in 1952, as it was led by Ken Hill. So in its place the PNP formed the National Workers Union in 1953.
The PNP under Michael Manley would reaffirm democratic socialism in 1974. This would cause another internal split. And that was one of several reasons that, in 1980, the JLP won 51 of the 60 seats and Edward Seaga became prime minister. In the meantime, the world moved away from socialism, and by 1989 the PNP shelved socialism again.
And again, the PNP's ability to organise was fully utilised after the PNP and its affiliate West Indies Federal Labour Party won the federal elections but got fewer seats than the JLP/West Indies Democratic Labour Party alliance. A 23-year-old P J Patterson was hired to organise the PNP machinery, and when that was done Norman Manley called a snap election for July 28, 1959 and the PNP won easily.
The PNP can always argue that is fundamental aims have been reflected in its social programmes, particularly in the 1950s, 1970s and 1990s. But today, the PNP needs to re-discover its roots so that it can focus on its fundamental aims and not be so distracted with winning at all costs.
How much has the PNP's arch-rival been "PNP-i-sed" by Edward Seaga, Bruce Golding or Andrew Holness? I do not include Hugh Shearer because it is not necessary. How much more PNPisation will the JLP undergo if Audley Shaw becomes leader of the JLP. If the JLP goes left will the PNP go right? This is why it is important for the PNP to rediscover its roots.
Today (September 19) is also 37 years since Michael Manley made his famous "we know where we are going speech" in 1976. Does the PNP know where it is going today?