Tweet
Are plans to destroy the PNP real?
Christopher Burns
Monday, November 26, 2007
THE question many are asking these days is, "Is there any truth to rumours that some well-placed individuals and a quasi-political group are developing plans to annihilate the People's National Party?"
Christopher Burns
This raging question is gaining momentum like a wildfire in a dry forest. Equally frightening is the level of believability that is accompanying these mumblings, buttressed by a cosy acceptance of the local axiom that "If a nuh suh, then a near suh."
Consequently, those who prefer to either dismiss it or ignore the magnitude this potential political quagmire could cause if it materialises, should think twice.
There might be no glaring signs of disquiet at the moment, or the occasional howls of protest about this very intense and potentially explosive perception, but contrary to what some believe the perceived attempts have not escaped many; some of whom are stealthily planning to mount staunch opposition to any such attempt.
I first heard the story about a month ago. A reliable source told me of rumblings in certain quarters that neither money nor effort will be spared in ensuring that the party (founded by a group of visionaries in 1938 and led by the likes of the late Norman and Michael Manley, super strategist PJ Patterson, and the instinctive egalitarian Portia Simpson Miller) is structurally and politically decimated.
These plans, the source said, are to ensure that come the next general elections, the JLP would be up against a political party that does not spell PNP.
It was during this conversation that I was informed of the Cabinet's and the JLP's decision to fuel the resurgence of the Trafigura investigations and of other muckraking plans that principal strategists inside and outside the JLP administration are likely to pursue. However, as my late father would say, "'Tan and see nuh spoil nuh dance, is interference that spoils it."
That aside, let us examine the Trafigura affair. From the very outset, I took the position that while two wrongs do not make a right, I was willing to render the PNP an object of scorn for allowing its name to be mixed up with the opprobrium associated with the reputation of Trafigura. I made it abundantly clear subsequently and now restate that the PNP, in accepting or even attempting to contrive such a deal, lowered its pedigree 10 folds. If bribery or any other acts of malfeasance are proved, then let the chips fall where they may. I still abominate the actions of the JLP for aiding and abetting breaches of the Bank of Jamaica regulations and for allowing maliciousness to trump legality.
Having said that though, any continuance of the Trafigura investigations cannot ignore the need to (a) fortify against and discourage potential breaches of banking regulations, (b) reasonably enact the whistleblower legislation, and (c) complete development and implementation of far-reaching campaign finance reforms, specifically as they address local and international funding of political parties in Jamaica. The motives here cannot simply be to achieve political persecutions or to promote character assassination. The Jamaican maxim is on target here when it says, "When one man's beard is on fire, wet yours."
Attempting to send former government ministers to prison out of spite does not answer the fundamental question about limiting or eliminating the corrupting influence that big money has on democracies such as ours. It does not answer the question about the presence or power of surrogate prime ministers who weren't elected as such.
If the last general elections were anything to go by, this JLP government has absolutely no moral authority to be moving as it is without a fulsome disclosure of the sources and application of election funds, estimated at some J$1.2 billion. The PNP and the fledgling NDM must also meet this litmus test.
In many ways, the PNP now finds itself in a difficult situation. And, like other opposition parties, it now operates in very challenging circumstances in which the private sector, segments of the media and civil society are indifferent towards it and are concerned more about furthering their political agendas and less with the interest of the populace. While only time will expose the worth of these budding perceptions and rumours of obliteration, the PNP cannot roll over and play dead.
Instead, it has to devise honest means of financing itself and its activities. It must come to the realisation that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and move to repair the threatening cracks within its structure - the party can no longer pretend otherwise.
The sooner the PNP moves to clear out the muck from the innermost parts of its bowels that is being masqueraded as healthy innards, the healthier it will be to ward off any untoward assaults. No organisation is perfect and its strength and longevity are dependent on the sum of all efforts. Therefore, the soul searching must start at the very top and managed in a way that produces the requisite changes. In this regard, the PNP should revisit the mobilisation and communication programmes and group resurgence strategies of the 1980s.
Critical to this process is the question of leadership, parliamentary activism, fixity of purpose and cogency of response to government statements. All these things require an active, sufficiently informed, and proactive party leader.
A leader who is capable of distinguishing between political power and authority, outlining a set of ideological imperatives that will inform the party's stance on governance, and can articulate a clear vision of the party's philosophical thinking, while simultaneously providing a road map which points to the direction the government-in-waiting would take the country should it regain state power. Methinks that the leadership issue must be part of the party's rebranding, restructuring, marketing, and outreach initiatives.
Burnscg@aol.com
Christopher Burns
Monday, November 26, 2007
THE question many are asking these days is, "Is there any truth to rumours that some well-placed individuals and a quasi-political group are developing plans to annihilate the People's National Party?"
Christopher Burns This raging question is gaining momentum like a wildfire in a dry forest. Equally frightening is the level of believability that is accompanying these mumblings, buttressed by a cosy acceptance of the local axiom that "If a nuh suh, then a near suh."
Consequently, those who prefer to either dismiss it or ignore the magnitude this potential political quagmire could cause if it materialises, should think twice.
There might be no glaring signs of disquiet at the moment, or the occasional howls of protest about this very intense and potentially explosive perception, but contrary to what some believe the perceived attempts have not escaped many; some of whom are stealthily planning to mount staunch opposition to any such attempt.
I first heard the story about a month ago. A reliable source told me of rumblings in certain quarters that neither money nor effort will be spared in ensuring that the party (founded by a group of visionaries in 1938 and led by the likes of the late Norman and Michael Manley, super strategist PJ Patterson, and the instinctive egalitarian Portia Simpson Miller) is structurally and politically decimated.
These plans, the source said, are to ensure that come the next general elections, the JLP would be up against a political party that does not spell PNP.
It was during this conversation that I was informed of the Cabinet's and the JLP's decision to fuel the resurgence of the Trafigura investigations and of other muckraking plans that principal strategists inside and outside the JLP administration are likely to pursue. However, as my late father would say, "'Tan and see nuh spoil nuh dance, is interference that spoils it."
That aside, let us examine the Trafigura affair. From the very outset, I took the position that while two wrongs do not make a right, I was willing to render the PNP an object of scorn for allowing its name to be mixed up with the opprobrium associated with the reputation of Trafigura. I made it abundantly clear subsequently and now restate that the PNP, in accepting or even attempting to contrive such a deal, lowered its pedigree 10 folds. If bribery or any other acts of malfeasance are proved, then let the chips fall where they may. I still abominate the actions of the JLP for aiding and abetting breaches of the Bank of Jamaica regulations and for allowing maliciousness to trump legality.
Having said that though, any continuance of the Trafigura investigations cannot ignore the need to (a) fortify against and discourage potential breaches of banking regulations, (b) reasonably enact the whistleblower legislation, and (c) complete development and implementation of far-reaching campaign finance reforms, specifically as they address local and international funding of political parties in Jamaica. The motives here cannot simply be to achieve political persecutions or to promote character assassination. The Jamaican maxim is on target here when it says, "When one man's beard is on fire, wet yours."
Attempting to send former government ministers to prison out of spite does not answer the fundamental question about limiting or eliminating the corrupting influence that big money has on democracies such as ours. It does not answer the question about the presence or power of surrogate prime ministers who weren't elected as such.
If the last general elections were anything to go by, this JLP government has absolutely no moral authority to be moving as it is without a fulsome disclosure of the sources and application of election funds, estimated at some J$1.2 billion. The PNP and the fledgling NDM must also meet this litmus test.
In many ways, the PNP now finds itself in a difficult situation. And, like other opposition parties, it now operates in very challenging circumstances in which the private sector, segments of the media and civil society are indifferent towards it and are concerned more about furthering their political agendas and less with the interest of the populace. While only time will expose the worth of these budding perceptions and rumours of obliteration, the PNP cannot roll over and play dead.
Instead, it has to devise honest means of financing itself and its activities. It must come to the realisation that "a house divided against itself cannot stand" and move to repair the threatening cracks within its structure - the party can no longer pretend otherwise.
The sooner the PNP moves to clear out the muck from the innermost parts of its bowels that is being masqueraded as healthy innards, the healthier it will be to ward off any untoward assaults. No organisation is perfect and its strength and longevity are dependent on the sum of all efforts. Therefore, the soul searching must start at the very top and managed in a way that produces the requisite changes. In this regard, the PNP should revisit the mobilisation and communication programmes and group resurgence strategies of the 1980s.
Critical to this process is the question of leadership, parliamentary activism, fixity of purpose and cogency of response to government statements. All these things require an active, sufficiently informed, and proactive party leader.
A leader who is capable of distinguishing between political power and authority, outlining a set of ideological imperatives that will inform the party's stance on governance, and can articulate a clear vision of the party's philosophical thinking, while simultaneously providing a road map which points to the direction the government-in-waiting would take the country should it regain state power. Methinks that the leadership issue must be part of the party's rebranding, restructuring, marketing, and outreach initiatives.
Burnscg@aol.com
Comment