Dem Run Tings Ah Jamrock!

My fellow Jamaicans,

I stand before you not as a member of the elite, nor as a politician with an entourage, but as a working-class Jamaican. I received a secondary school education. I have worked for more than thirty years — on factory floors, behind office desks, and in supervisory and managerial roles. I pursued professional training and tertiary-level courses while raising a family and meeting my responsibilities. I know what it is to rise before dawn and return home after dark.

It is from that lived experience that I speak tonight about the influence of the so-called power-brokers, king-makers, and “topanaris” in Jamaican politics and business.

We all recognise these figures. We may not always name them openly, but their influence is felt. They are often unelected, sometimes unseen, yet frequently decisive.

Historical Foundations: From Plantation Hierarchy to Political Machinery

To understand their influence today, we must examine our past.

Jamaica’s political and economic structures were shaped by a plantation system in which a small minority controlled land, capital, and authority. Even after Emancipation, political power remained concentrated among property-owning elites. It was not until the introduction of universal adult suffrage in 1944 that the majority of Jamaicans gained formal political power.

Leaders such as Norman Manley and Alexander Bustamante mobilised workers and established trade unions as powerful political forces. For the first time, the working class became central to national decision-making.

However, influence did not disappear; it merely evolved.

During the 1970s, under the leadership of Michael Manley, politics became intensely ideological and polarised. Communities aligned themselves sharply along party lines. The phenomenon of garrison politics emerged, and access to housing, employment, contracts, and even personal security could depend upon political affiliation.

In this period, the modern Jamaican “king-maker” became more visible — individuals who did not necessarily hold elected office but wielded significant influence over who did.

The Convergence of Politics and Business

In the 1980s and 1990s, particularly during the administration of Edward Seaga, economic liberalisation strengthened the connection between politics and private enterprise.

Political campaigns require substantial funding — for media exposure, organisational support, and constituency mobilisation. Inevitably, those who finance campaigns acquire influence.

Major contractors, developers, importers, and corporate sponsors became increasingly intertwined with political processes. Some contributed out of genuine ideological commitment. Others did so to secure access, protect investments, or shape policy outcomes.

Over time, a networked ecosystem developed:

• The financier who can determine whether a campaign thrives or falters.

• The senior party insider who influences candidate selection.

• The corporate actor who shapes policy through proximity.

• The “topanaris” who holds no formal office yet commands significant influence behind closed doors.

For many ordinary Jamaicans, the effects are visible even if the mechanisms are not.

Consequences for the Working Class

When public contracts consistently circulate within a narrow circle,
when board appointments appear to favour familiar names,
when internal party democracy seems predetermined,
and when capable individuals are overlooked for those with connections,

a troubling perception emerges: merit alone is insufficient; access is decisive.

Such a perception is corrosive. It weakens faith in institutions and discourages aspiration. If young Jamaicans conclude that advancement depends more on association than ability, innovation and productivity inevitably suffer.

To be fair, influence is not synonymous with corruption. Not every donor manipulates policy; not every influential figure acts improperly. Networks of influence exist in all democracies.

The fundamental issue is transparency and accountability.

A Culture of Quiet Influence

In Jamaica, influence often operates subtly. Agreements may not always be written, yet understandings are clear. There are individuals whose approval must be sought, whose endorsement carries weight, and whose disapproval can obstruct progress.

Sometimes such influence is exercised discreetly. At other times, it is unmistakable. It persists because it is effective — and because it is tolerated.

The Responsibility of the Citizen

Having worked for over three decades, I remain convinced that diligence, education, and professional development are essential. Yet civic engagement is equally vital.

We must:

• Demand transparency within political parties.

• Support meaningful campaign finance reform.

• Strengthen institutions rather than elevate personalities.

• Reward integrity at the ballot box.

• Protect whistle-blowers.

• Encourage independent and investigative media.

Influence flourishes in opacity; it diminishes under scrutiny.

The Way Forward

Jamaica is not unique. Every society contains networks of influence. The question is not whether power exists — it invariably does. The question is who ultimately controls it.

Is it confined to a small circle operating beyond public oversight?
Or is it subject to the will of the Jamaican people through strong, independent institutions?

We have progressed far from plantation oligarchy. We have endured ideological conflict. We have stabilised our economy and built respected enterprises and public institutions.

Yet political maturity is not a destination; it is an ongoing discipline.

As a working Jamaican, I do not seek favour. I seek fairness. I do not seek connections. I seek opportunity. I do not seek king-makers. I seek accountable leadership.

If we collectively insist upon transparency, merit, and institutional integrity, then no power-broker — however influential — will be stronger than the will of the people.

Thank you, and may God bless Jamaica.