[ NEW ] Go to our blog and give us your comments on  at http://cblog.pnpjamaica.org

A Letter to the Leaders of the People's National Party, 22 July 2008. nd
First Distribution: P.N.P. Officers Meeting, Wednesday 23 July 2008 nd
Second Distribution: National Executive Council Meeting, Sunday 27 July, 2008. th
Comrades, I write as sincerely and as inoffensively as I am able to. I really do not know whether to hope or expect any action from the leaders of our Party, particularly at this time. Let me first of all establish some facts concerning my own positions from the outset, so hopefully, there will be no need for any speculation or interpretations as to my role over the next three months. 

1. Since reaching age 56 years in June of this year, I informed most, if not all, of my closest
friends and political colleagues, and I certainly have said it to both Comrades Portia Simpson
Miller and Vice President Peter Phillips - they probably have not taken me seriously - that
outside of a general election, and assisting Vice-President, Comrade Angela Brown Burke in
her own campaign, I have retired from all field politics.
2. I am not getting involved in the present presidential campaign. In my view, this contest is
mainly centered on personal and leadership ambitions and nothing else. I have always
appreciated that the ‘P' in the P.N.P. did not stand for ‘P.J.' or ‘Patterson' in the past, and
in the present, does not stand for ‘Portia' or ‘Peter' notwithstanding what some of their
sycophants may believe.
3. I believe that my greatest contribution to the Party, at this time, is to advance the work of the
Political Education Commission and the Structures Review Committee. I believe if we had
advanced the work in both these areas and had not been diverted by the internal presidential
elections, it would be a different People's Party today. I believe, we would not have much
of the problems we have today.
I also made my own mistakes in being diverted from the work of the Campaign for
Transformation, which was never supported by any of the 2006 presidential candidates. I,
therefore, do not intend to be diverted from the work of the Political Education Commission
and the Structures Review Committee although I accept this activity and others, may
unfortunately be derailed by the presidential contest
4. If the work of the Structures Review Committee and the Political Education Commission is
going to be derailed, I do not want this as a result any misunderstanding or any erroneous
speculation about my motives. I intend to give my assignment the very best shot,
notwithstanding the impending contest of personalities.
2
5. I am still available to work with or assist any member of the Party, inclusive of the Party
President, any of the vice-presidents, or any other members in carrying out the Party work,
within my abilities and capabilities. If I am invited to South West St Andrew, East Central
St Andrew or any other constituency, for a structured constituency meeting to deal with Party
matters, to speak to either the Political Education Programme or the Proposed Amendments
to the Party Constitution, I intend to participate.
6. I will not campaign or be involved in the Presidential Campaign whatsoever, although I have
a declared preference. In fact, I do not know whether I want to even be a delegate or to vote
at all. If I do offer myself and I am selected as a delegate by the New Foundations Group,
I will cast my vote in the name of Portia Simpson Miller.
6. I am prepared to support the Party, regardless of who wins the contest. However, I do not
know whether I will be prepared to continue as a member of this Party in the face of the
continued threat to democracy in our Party.
The Threat to the Party Democracy
Sometime in 1975, some 33 years ago, I would have read the Black Jacobins, by that Great West
Indian thinker, historian and writer, C.L.R James.
Going strictly from memory, there was a point in time in the Haitian Revolution, when the issues and
contradictions heightened, there was both inaction and action, where the Revolution was in danger
of being turned back. The actual quote I cannot find at this moment. He wrote words to the effect,
Sometimes it is very dangerous to speak. Sometimes, it is even more dangerous not to speak.
We have all been guilty of inaction and silence over the years. Some of us more than others, but if
we accept the principle of collective leadership, we are all partly guilty.
What is masquerading as our Party's internal democratic system, is a total farce. We all know the
truth and facts. Some of our leaders have not only been in denial over the years, they are the most
guilty in perpetrating it. The internal elections of the mid-1990's saw the introduction for the first
time of big money on a wholesale level to directly influence and buy delegates. I can say this
categorically, and I can back up these assertions with facts.
Cabinet ministers and the Party leadership must have known what was happening, who was
responsible and the implications. We did nothing. Although some of us spoke in the Executive
Committee at the time, we kept silent as a Party because we feared the negative publicity and
backlash. By keeping silent with the intention of protecting the Party's image, we were actually being
part of that silent corrosive that was destroying the democracy within the organization.
3
The stage was set. The same trend continued right up to the February 2006 Presidential Elections.
We continued to be in denial but that was only part of the problem that has assisted in comprising,
contaminating and corrupting the democracy within the Party. Groups and the delegate selection
process were hijacked by all the campaigns, some more than others. It does not matter who started
this practice and who did more, all instances of this was corruption of the Party's democratic process.
Certainly, our founders who developed the Groups to ensure the organization of the Party in the first
instance, to recruit, to educate, to support and to participate in decision making, must be turning in
their graves. Based on all that I know, I must come to the thinking that there is absolutely no
integrity in our Party's leadership when it comes to protecting democracy in the Party.
We speak about integrity in national life. It must start from within, by protecting the very democracy
exercised by of our members. How can we use a process which is not just flawed but so corrupt?
Disgusted
I am not a die-hard P.N.P. I never have been, although I have always maintained membership in the
organization. However, I have always been a ‘committed comrade with a cause' recognizing the
Peoples' National Party as the vehicle to bring about change and transformation in the interest of the
widest cross section of the Jamaican people. For the very first time, in our 70 year of existence and th
in my thirty-nine years of having a relationship with the Party starting as a student in April 1969, I
actually wonder what I am doing in a Party like this.
What have we gained over the years by keeping silent and compromising our integrity? In the past,
we rationalized our weakness as the better good for ‘Party Unity' and not to do or say anything to
contribute to public criticisms or to our electoral demise. Well our contradictions, double standards
and undemocratic behavior have caught up with us and we have paid the political price. Not only did
we lose the 2007 national elections but we truly have a divided Party, which in my view, the outcome
of the impending presidential contest, whichever way it goes, will not unite us.
Some of us celebrated Norman Manley's Birthday, on the 4 July 2008, at a simple function put on th
by Resource Group Seven, in May Pen, at which Mrs. Beverly Manley and Dr. Winston Dawes were
our presenters. It became clear to us in the discussions, that over the years, in spite of the many
glorious and substantial achievements by our Party, we have actually lost our way.
If there had been real organizational capacity and had we not lost our way, we would have been able
to survive the blows we received during the 2006 and 2007 campaign and perhaps in spite of
Hurricane Dean, would perhaps have still won the September 2007 elections, in spite of the mistakes
we made, if indeed, we would have actually made some of those mistakes.
4
The Present Situation
As I sat in the Annual Constituency Conference of the East Kingston and Port Royal Constituency,
on Sunday 20 July 2008, and heard in the minutes from the previous Annual Constituency th
Conference held earlier this year, words to the effect, that the constituency would have to increase
the registration of groups in order to have political leverage, I shook my head with disgust.
In the view of most of the Comrades, what other options did the East Kingston and Port Royal
Constituency have? I know that there cannot be anywhere near one hundred and twenty (120)
functional Groups in East Kingston and Port Royal or any other constituency in Jamaica at this time
under the present circumstances.
In 2003, and contained in the Region Three Annual Report, and fortunately, fully reproduced in the
Party's Annual Report to the 2003 National Conference, it was pointed out that the constituency
of North East St Andrew, which lost the 2002 General Elections garnering 4,614 votes, would have
in the 2003 vice-presidential contest, eighty plus delegates. This was more than the combined
delegate strength of East Kingston (7,791 votes) and Central Kingston (5,434 votes) which polled
a total 12, 405 votes in the 2002 General Elections and which had a total of eighty-one (81)
delegates, in spite of having two winning Members of Parliaments and three winning councillors out
of four municipal divisions, compared to absolutely no successful Party candidates in North East St
Andrew. The same pattern continues in 2008 when one reflects on where groups have been
registered. These questions beg to be asked.
• What are we building?
• Is it Democracy or the Registration of Groups?
• Is it Democracy or Delegate Strength?
Self Deception
I worked extensively in Western St Thomas in November and early December 2007 in the Local
Government Campaign. There is a small group of committed and dedicated comrades led by
Comrade Rose Shaw who between them do a tremendous amount of Party work. During my period
there, I spoke to many members in trying to put polling division teams together. I spoke to P.D.
workers all over the constituency. They were all very open, telling me that Groups had not met for
years. They plainly said words to the effect, "the Groups were non-existent." These comments were
made in front of the constituency leaders and were never challenged. In fact, they accepted this as
a given.
This constituency now has 132 registered Party Groups as of April 2008. We lost the general
elections and we lost in all six divisions in the December 2007 Local Government Election. I believe
that if we had even five real and functional Groups per division, the results would have been different.
This is the same story in so many more constituencies and divisions.
5
The Failure of the Organization
All kinds of reasons are provided for our defeat in the 2007 general elections. I believe one of the
major factors was the weakness of organization which started to break down from the late 1990's.
In the 2007 Campaign, in so many constituencies, we just could not find suitable and willing
volunteers or even paid workers. This is what Comrade Norman Manley had to say after our 1944
electoral defeat, as quoted from the book Manley and New Jamaica, and titled as follows:
Democracy and Political Organization
Presidential Address, Annual Conference of PNP, 11 August 1945:
The building up of the party organization on the basis of cellular groups was one way of ensuring, so Manley
thought, grass-roots participation, and the first year of existence was devoted to this activity with very good
results. Tied to this was the programme of mass political education which was a declared aim of the party.
This programme had apparently worked well with BITU groups kept alive during Bustamante's detention.
The loss of the 1944 elections convinced Manley that this aspect of the programme was vital to the each
future electoral fortunes of the party. (He was to be proven right by the striking results in the 1949 general
elections which started to be change the face of the PNP from an exclusively urban middle class party.) The
work of Organization in the field of trade unionism is here related. This was in the hands of Ken Hill,
Richard Hart, Frank Hill and Arthur Henry, who formed the core of the young and energetic left-wing of the
party. (Editor's notes)
"But we have learnt another great thing in this election, and I want you to hold it in mind,
especially delegates, for this election proves that the group structure of the party is a good,
powerful and unbeatable structure for political development. Remember that when we started this
thing it was a pure experiment. No one could tell whether it would prove possible to build up all
over Jamaica political groups capable of finding local leaders willing to accept responsibility. I
do not pretend we are half-way to perfection, but I do know this - go through the nineteen
constituencies where we stood, and you will find that we were never defeated in anyone where we
had a good group structure.
And let Comrade Lloyd be a witness to the value of a good group structure, because his
constituents had at election time perhaps the best set of working groups in the party. They would
be the best, because they had one of the best politicians in Jamaica to guide them. And a
combination of first-class politician and good groups got the biggest single majority obtained in
any constituency in any election - a victory by ten to one. That is perhaps the most significant
thing for the future of the party, and from a practical point of view, the most important lesson
that we can learn, from the last elections." Norman Manley.
6
Back to Reality
As I sat down in East Kingston and Port Royal Conference, I realized that delegates representing any
two other non-functional Groups had more say in terms of votes in the affairs of the constituency than
the New Foundations Group, a Group which earnestly tries to carry out its political work as set out
in Rule 31 of the P.N.P. Constitution. This same situation is repeated in many divisions,
constituencies and in the national organization. Is this democracy or is it just P.N.P. slackness and
business as usual?
Constituency Audits
In 2000, the delegates at Annual Conference took a decision to audit Groups to ensure the integrity
of the Organization. In 2001, then General Secretary, Comrade Maxine Henry Wilson, gave the
reason for not carrying out audits as the unavailability of funds. The delegates of the 63 Annual rd
National Conference took the decision that regardless of funding, the six constituencies with the most
Groups should be audited annually.
The 21 Century Mission, under the Role of the Party, states..."The Party must institute frequent
auditing of consistencies to ensure that the structure of the Party is maintained, as stated in its
Constitution." To the best of my knowledge, the last field audit was carried out in 2004 and 2005
with much resistance provided from certain persons in leadership positions. What will be our position
in 2008 with impending vice-president and presidential contests.
South West St Andrew and East Central St Andrew
In the Region Three 2003 Annual Report, it was pointed out that the two main offending
constituencies in the Region in terms of the registration and maintenance of paper groups, were South
West St Andrew and East Central St Andrew. At the N.E.C. Meeting in July 2003, held at the
U.W.I. Social Sciences Lecture Theatre, I was chastised by both Comrade Simpson Miller and
Comrade Peter Phillips, although more humourously - he jokingly threatened to sue - for highlighting
their constituencies.
I told them we could open the issue up at the N.E.C. They both declined. I know that in the local
government elections of 2003, for the Maxfield and Hagley Park Divisions, we could not find real
groups. Although having a Recognized Constituency and Recognized Divisions, we had to allow
indoor agents to vote instead of group delegates and we also had to rely on polls conducted by Don
Anderson. The same was true for the Greenwich Division, in South West St Andrew, where we
could find no active Party Groups. These are the hard facts.
Sometime after, Central Westmoreland surpassed them both with their magnitude of paper groups.
Today, the situation is ludicrous, with East Central St Andrew registering 290 Groups and South
West St Andrew, with a little over 205 Groups. It does not matter who, or which constituency started
this, or who has done more. Not only is it wrong, it is the biggest threat to democracy in the
People's Party.
7
A Simple Analysis.
This simple analysis is not accurate as to whether or not Groups exist in the first instance, or are
actually active in the second instance, but is indicative of the actual number of registered groups to
P.N.P. votes, as polled in the September 2007 General Elections. The figures are based on the official
E.O.J. results and the registration of groups in the Party's April 2008 summary.
Constituency 2007
P.N.P. Votes
Registered
Groups
Ratio of Registered Group to P.N.P.
Votes
East Central St Andrew 6,382 291 One Group for every 21.9 P.N.P. votes
Approximately one P.N.P. Group Member
for every 2.2 P.N.P. votes*
South West St Andrew 9,360 205 One Group for every 45.65 P.N.P. votes
Approximately one P.N.P. Group Member
for every 4.5 P.N.P. votes*
South East St Andrew 5,187 142 One Group for every 36.5 P.N.P. votes
Approximately one P.N.P. Group Member
for every 3.6 P.N.P. votes*
East Kingston
and Port Royal
7,183 121 One Group for every 59.3 P.N.P. votes
Approximately one P.N.P. Group Member
for every 6 P.N.P. votes*
Eastern St Andrew 5308 118 One Group for every 44.9 P.N.P. votes
Approximately one P.N.P. Group Member
for every 4.5 P.N.P. votes*
* Assuming that the Group has ten members only. If more than ten members, its gets worse
Integrity and Morality
Comrades Portia Simpson Miller and Peter Phillips must lead by example. The position of wanting
either to hold onto or to win the post of Party President cannot be greater than the democratic
interest of the Party. They must pay for their constituencies to be fully and properly audited. They
must lead by example. Anything less, will only convince me, it is all about their personal ambitions
and self-aggrandizement.
8
When I read the early history of the Party, the speeches by O.T. Fairclough, Norman Manley and
Richard Hart, in our 70 year, some of the comrades with a cause must in the failure of our Party th
leaders, speak to these issues regardless of the personal consequences. I will not be silent on these
issues. I hope that my struggling for and speaking to and for democracy within our Party will not
lead to my expulsion in our 70 year. th
Finally, a speech relating to a different country and a different time, with a Party committed to
revolutionary politics compared to ours which is committed to transformative politics. For what it
is worth, I attach an address by Comrade Chairman Mao, ‘Combating Liberalism,' made in 1937.
Yours in comradeship,
Paul Burke.
22 July, 2008. nd
Financial Member,
New Foundation Group
Combat Liberalism:
We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity within
the Party and the revolutionary organizations in the interests of our fight. Every Socialist and
revolutionary should take up this weapon.
But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise
to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and
individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organizations. Liberalism manifest itself in
various ways.
To let things slide for the sake of peace and friendship when a person has clearly gone
wrong, and refrain from principled argument because he is an old acquaintance, a fellow
townsman, a schoolmate, a close friend, a loved one, an old colleague or old subordinate. Or
to touch on the matter lightly instead of going into it thoroughly, so as to keep on good
terms. The result is that both the organization and the individual are harmed. This is one type
of liberalism.
To indulge in irresponsible criticism in private instead of actively putting one's suggestions
to the organization. To say nothing to people to their faces but to gossip behind their backs,
or to say nothing at a meeting but gossip afterwards. To show no regard at all for the
principles of collective life but to follow one's own inclination. This is a second type.
To let things drift if they do not affect one personally; to say as little as possible while
knowing perfectly what is wrong, to be worldly wise and play safe and seek only to avoid
blame. This is a third type.
Not to obey orders but to give pride of place to one's options. To demand special
consideration from the organization but to reject its discipline. This is a fourth type.
To indulge in personal attacks, pick quarrels vent personal spite or seek revenge instead of
entering into an argument and struggling against incorrect views for the sake of unity or
progress or getting the work done properly. This is a fifth type.
To hear incorrect views without rebutting them and even to hear counter-revolutionary
remarks without reporting them, but instead to take them calmly as if nothing had happened.
This is a sixth type.
To be among the masses and fail to conduct propaganda and agitation or speak at meetings
investigation and inquiries among them, and instead to be indifferent to them and show no
concern for their well-being, forgetting that one is a Socialist and behaving as if one were
an ordinary non-Socialist. This is a seventh type.
To see someone harming the interest of the masses and yet not feeling indignant, or dissuade
or stop him or reason with him, but to allow him to continue. This is an eighth type.
To work half-heartedly without a definite plan or direction; to perfunctorily and muddle
along "So long as one remains a monk, one goes on tolling the belly." This a ninth type.
To regard oneself as having rendered great service to the revolution, to pride oneself on being
a veteran, to disdain minor assignments while being quite unequal to major tasks, to be
slipshod in work and slack in study. This is a tenth type.
To be aware of one's own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal
attitude towards oneself. This is a eleventh type.
We could name more. But these eleven are the principal types. They are all manifestations
of liberalism. Liberalism is extremely harmful in a revolutionary collective. It is a corrosive
which eats away unity, undermine cohesion, causes apathy and creates dissension. It robs the
revolutionary ranks of compact organization and strict discipline, prevents policies from
being carried through and alienates the Party organizations from the masses which the Party
leads. It is an extremely bad tendency.
Liberalism stems from petty-bourgeois selfishness, it places personal interest first and the
interest of the revolutionary second, and this gives rise to ideological, political and
organizational liberalism.
People who are liberals look upon the principles of Marxism as abstract dogma. They
approve of Marxism, but are not prepared to practice it or to practice it in full; they are not
prepared to replace their liberalism by Marxism. These people have their Marxism, but they
have their liberalism as well- they talk Marxism but practice liberalism; they apply Marxism
to others but liberalism to themselves. They keep both kinds of goods in stock and find a use
for each. This is how the minds of certain people work.
Extracts from Address from Mao Tse-Tung, September 1937

Paul Burke