Crossing the Rubicon into Autocracy

Crossing the Rubicon into Autocracy

Ambassador Curtis A. Ward

(19 June 2025) — We may not be there yet, but we are well on the way. This essay is about autocracy, that corruption feeds on autocracy and vice-versa. Corruption thrives in autocracy with one used to conceal the other.

Our country, Jamaica, embarked on the journey of an independent nation embracing democracy and eschewing authoritarianism. Who can forget the words of Jamaica’s first prime minister and National Hero, the indomitable Sir Alexander Bustamante. “We are with the West!” He famously said. Our nascent democracy was embraced by both leaders of the major political parties, the Bustamante-led JLP and the Norman Manley-led PNP. Manley, also recognized as one of Jamaica’s National Heroes, was passionate in defense of democracy.

At the time, when Sir Alexander spoke those words there was a clear distinction between political and economic systems of the East and of the West, the former represented authoritarianism and the other, democracy. The contest was between government power and control over the people versus power by the people with regular free and fair elections to select their representatives. The democratic system of government by the people and for the people contemplated transparency in government and accountability for those who betrayed the people’s trust. A system of government that would not and could not be controlled by a few corrupt officials.

The Jamaican people came to believe that Jamaica’s practice of democracy was equal to none. This was based on the trust of the citizenry that the country would be led by democratically elected leaders, who were committed to a democratic form of government. And from that there would be good governance and accountability for malfeasance and other violations.

Upon deeper analysis and experience we have learnt that our constitution does not of itself guarantee democracy. The recent government’s misadventure into long overdue “constitutional reform”, flawed as it was, has shown us that any political party with a super majority in the lower house of parliament, if so inclined, could consolidate power in the prime minister rather than in the people. That is undemocratic and leads to autocracy. The so-called constitutional reform process is now correctly aborted. It would not deliver the people’s expectations for good governance and accountability. Most Jamaicans at home and abroad want a strengthened democracy that gives more power and control to the people and not to the politicians.

We embraced the basic freedoms which flow from the rule of law and democracy and enshrined in the Jamaican constitution – freedom of speech, of the press, religion, and association, and the right to assembly in peaceful protest of government actions. These freedoms are to be exercised at will without fear of retribution or hindrance by the government.

All governments since independence have stuck to the basic tenets of democracy and the rule of law. However, each government has approached accountability differently when accused of corruption. And each political leader has at some point exhibited different levels of autocratic behavior, oftentimes related to internal issues and relationships.

Although, as party leader, Bustamante embraced democracy there are myriad anecdotes which suggested that he ruled his party as a fiefdom–unquestioned fealty. Even though some of the stories are humorous, they suggest that he had coerced his ministers and other senior politicians within his party to be his sycophants. Arguably, Bustamante may have been autocratic in many of his actions.

The same may be said of any political leader who stifles any of the basic freedoms of the citizens. Prime Minister Hugh Shearer banned books and denied entry to a UWI lecturer because he expressed views contrary to his. Despite those suppression of fundamental rights, however, Shearer was notably possessed of redeeming qualities which established him as one of Jamaica’s best leaders.

Prime Minister Edward Seaga may have been the most autocratic of all prime ministers, prior to where we are today. Seaga was often described as a “one man don”. He was reputed for coercing his senior political party members to do his bidding and was intolerant of any form of dissent. He expelled dissenters and did not tolerate any challenge to his autocratic rule. His infamous edict to five dissenters after they were expelled was for them to “sing a Sankey” and to crawl back into the party. They abided by and acquiesced in Seaga’s conditions. He demanded sycophancy from ministers and top political operatives in his party. He was reputed as having employed violence against his opponents and dissenters, and for having a shadow militia, a posse, serving and enforcing his will, at his beck and call. Those are actions of an autocrat.

Three People’s National Party administrations — led by Prime Ministers Michael Manley, P. J. Patterson, and Portia Simpson Miller — had their own issues with corruption scandals. But the level of alleged corruption which  occurred during their administrations paled in comparison to what we are experiencing now. Most importantly, those leaders allowed the judicial process free reign to resolve them. And there were no plausible accusations of autocratic behavior to circumvent the rule of law.

Perhaps the most autocratic is the current prime minister. No prior political regime was as plagued with corruption as this one is. There are numerous instances of lack of accountability for corrupt practices and several instances of autocratic behavior have been attributed to Prime minister Dr. Andrew Holness and the current administration. He coerced some senators he appointed to sign letters of resignation in advance of any disagreement he may have with them. He would not tolerate dissent. This undemocratic action was overturned in legal action brought before the court. An attempt to appoint a Chief Justice to a probationary period contrary to constitutional history failed in the face of citizens’ outcry. Ministers and senior party members who have either been charged with or accused of corruption, or with some other egregious and immoral behavior are retained or regularly returned to good status within the party.

Corruption seems to be commonplace for the Holness government. The prime minister himself has failed to justify his personal income in mandatory reports to the Integrity Commission. He has tried and failed to block further examination of his financial situation by resorting to the courts. Having been rejected by the court, the prime minister has appointed as head of the Financial Investigation Division (FID) a director who has already exonerated the prime minister of any wrongdoing in prior statements on his guilt or innocence, and he has denied any right to the FID to investigate further the prime minister’s finances. This is a conflict of interest and blatantly corrupt. The prime minister by this appointment is sending a strong message that he is above the law and not accountable to the people of Jamaica for clearly autocratic and possible corrupt behavior.

The current prime minister has resorted to states of emergency (SOEs) to fight crime on a continuing basis. But for the court blocking such persistent use of SOEs, Jamaica would be in a perpetual state of emergencies and enforcement of law by unconstitutional means. In the meantime, the police have engaged in what some observers are now describing as extra-judicial killings. While not directly attributed to the prime minister directly, his statements, characteristic of autocratic leaders in other countries, give rise to speculation that he gives aid and comfort to policing which eschews judicial protection of possible victims of police behavior.

More recent statements and utterances by senior political party members of the current government are also cause for concern that the current regime may not cede power according to constitutional processes. A close watch on the upcoming general elections and the governing party’s peaceful transfer of power in the event of a loss is now concerning those who hold the democratic process sacrosanct.

Not surprisingly, Jamaica occupies an unenviable position on the international scale of corrupt countries. Jamaica shares space with autocratic regimes led by corrupt leaders. Leaders who are not accountable to the citizens and who enjoy impunity from prosecution and punishment. Autocracy and corruption are bedfellows—each thrive upon the other.

The justice system snail-walks corruption cases which contributes to the perception that politicians will not be held accountable, particularly those of the governing party if they can hold on to power, perhaps by any means possible. There are sufficient reasons to believe that a corrupt government will resort to undemocratic processes to remain in power. Although rumors and scandals have been present in all administrations since independence, the current administration is arguably the one most plagued by corruption-related practices in the 60 plus years of the nation’s history.

But, as if there was any doubt, about creeping autocracy in the governance of Jamaica, that the democratic system is under threat, the prime minister unleashed his supporters in a brazen autocratic manner to stifle peaceful dissent by the people to the latest corrupt act. Without the heavy presence of the police at National Heroes Circle, it is argued that those participating in peaceful protest, an exercise of their fundamental rights, may have been met with violence. Stifling peaceful protests is undemocratic and a common strategy deployed by autocratic regimes. Was this a practice run for the prime minister?

Some may argue that there was no violence, so no harm was done. But be aware, autocracy does not announce its arrival. Autocracy creeps upon the citizens like a thief in the night when they ignore the warnings. The Rubican is broken.

© Curtis A. Ward/The Ward Post