Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Seaga's comparison of Manley and Mugabe is flawed</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Claude Robinson
Sunday, March 18, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>Former Prime Minister Edward Seaga's unflattering comparison of Jamaica under Michael Manley in the 1970s with today's Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is grossly overdrawn, but it has served to rekindle debate about a decade that is, without doubt, the most important in our modern history.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=90 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Claude Robinson </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Trade unionist Danny Roberts, chairman of the Michael Manley Foundation, dismissed the comparison as a "great injustice" to the memory of Michael Manley, who was prime minister in the controversial period 1972-1980 and again from 1989-92.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At a wreath-laying function March 6 to mark the 10th anniversary of Manley's death, Roberts also rejected as "sterile and limited" other characterisations of the Manley years as a period of "reckless politics."<P class=StoryText align=justify>Manley's legacy has been and will continue to be controversial. And while the legacy must include the economic contraction of the 1970s, I believe it must also include his unwavering belief in democracy, social justice, egalitarianism, and people power, as Roberts reminded the audience at National Heroes Park.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In a newspaper column (Sunday Gleaner March 4), Seaga recited Zimbabwe's woes: collapse of agriculture after "gangs" of his supporters took control of lands that used to be controlled by the white minority, empty shelves in stores, suppression of dissent and opposition voices.<P class=StoryText align=justify>He likened these to Jamaican 1970s woes like shortages, foreign exchange controls, fall in sugar production, factory closings, migration of skills and capital and the 1976 state of emergency.
Since the article appeared, political repression and the use of the state security apparatus against political dissent has worsened with the latest beating and subsequent hospitalisation of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the main opposition force in the country, the Movement for Democratic Change.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Of course, there can be no disputing that economic contraction occurred in the 1970s. The quarrel has always been about the reasons for the decline and whether the country was on the road to a socialist dictatorship and was only saved by Seaga as he claimed in the article.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=135 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>SEAGA. his analysis also failed to take account of context and the more deep-rooted problems which Manley sought to address in the 1970s </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>From my perspective, and the biases of someone who served as Manley's press secretary in the period, I believe that the comparison with Mugabe is misplaced for several reasons.
In the first place, it is quite clear that Mugabe does not share the democratic principles that have always been part of Manley's politics and, perhaps more importantly, Zimbabwe does not share the democratic traditions and institutions that Jamaica has been fashioning for more than 60 years.<P class=StoryText align=justify>According to Seaga's view of events, Jamaica did not choose the path of dictatorship
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Claude Robinson
Sunday, March 18, 2007
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>Former Prime Minister Edward Seaga's unflattering comparison of Jamaica under Michael Manley in the 1970s with today's Zimbabwe under Robert Mugabe is grossly overdrawn, but it has served to rekindle debate about a decade that is, without doubt, the most important in our modern history.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=90 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>Claude Robinson </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>Trade unionist Danny Roberts, chairman of the Michael Manley Foundation, dismissed the comparison as a "great injustice" to the memory of Michael Manley, who was prime minister in the controversial period 1972-1980 and again from 1989-92.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At a wreath-laying function March 6 to mark the 10th anniversary of Manley's death, Roberts also rejected as "sterile and limited" other characterisations of the Manley years as a period of "reckless politics."<P class=StoryText align=justify>Manley's legacy has been and will continue to be controversial. And while the legacy must include the economic contraction of the 1970s, I believe it must also include his unwavering belief in democracy, social justice, egalitarianism, and people power, as Roberts reminded the audience at National Heroes Park.<P class=StoryText align=justify>In a newspaper column (Sunday Gleaner March 4), Seaga recited Zimbabwe's woes: collapse of agriculture after "gangs" of his supporters took control of lands that used to be controlled by the white minority, empty shelves in stores, suppression of dissent and opposition voices.<P class=StoryText align=justify>He likened these to Jamaican 1970s woes like shortages, foreign exchange controls, fall in sugar production, factory closings, migration of skills and capital and the 1976 state of emergency.Since the article appeared, political repression and the use of the state security apparatus against political dissent has worsened with the latest beating and subsequent hospitalisation of Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the main opposition force in the country, the Movement for Democratic Change.<P class=StoryText align=justify>Of course, there can be no disputing that economic contraction occurred in the 1970s. The quarrel has always been about the reasons for the decline and whether the country was on the road to a socialist dictatorship and was only saved by Seaga as he claimed in the article.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=135 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD>
</TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description>SEAGA. his analysis also failed to take account of context and the more deep-rooted problems which Manley sought to address in the 1970s </SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>From my perspective, and the biases of someone who served as Manley's press secretary in the period, I believe that the comparison with Mugabe is misplaced for several reasons.In the first place, it is quite clear that Mugabe does not share the democratic principles that have always been part of Manley's politics and, perhaps more importantly, Zimbabwe does not share the democratic traditions and institutions that Jamaica has been fashioning for more than 60 years.<P class=StoryText align=justify>According to Seaga's view of events, Jamaica did not choose the path of dictatorship