Tweet
Debating political direction is good for democracy
published: Sunday | August 3, 2008
There is much mewling in the People's National Party (PNP) over the challenge for its [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]leadership[/COLOR][/COLOR] by Dr Peter Phillips, which belies the fact that this is a 70-year-old institution that likes to declare its capacity for ideas and deep commitment to democracy.
It would seem that people outside the PNP, which is to say the non-partisan majority of Jamaicans, invested greater faith in those declarations of principle, than many inside, and in the leadership of the party. The broad refrain from many in the PNP's top echelons is that Dr Phillips' timing is bad and that a contest now will lead to divisions and weaken the prospects for its early return to power. There is even an appeal to the historic importance of the year of the challenge, as if the 70th [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]anniversary[/COLOR][/COLOR] is invested with a special quality that would be despoiled by a questioning of ethos and reasons for existing.
The big problem, apparently, in the hierarchy of the PNP is its hope that global economic challenges and legal difficulties faced by several of the MPs of the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Jamaica[/COLOR][/COLOR] Labour Party (JLP) over their eligibility to sit in the House, will lead to a meltdown of the Golding [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]administration[/COLOR][/COLOR] and an early election.
Then, the PNP would easily return to the office - as if political power is an end in itself, bereft of broad principles and big transformational ideas. Which, perhaps, it is, for those who see politics largely in terms of personal aggrandisement and for, as we say in Jamaica, the distribution of "scare benefits and spoils". Such an interpretation of politics, though, is the short route to corruption.
Robust discourse
Of [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]course[/COLOR][/COLOR], the PNP has a right, maybe even reason, to be concerned about splitting itself apart in an internal campaign. But it would, and, perhaps, does speak volumes about what that party is, or has become, if it can't at this stage of its existence, endure a robust discourse about its direction and future, and who is best able to carry this process forward, without the organisation disintegrating. Or, maybe it says more about the personalities that abound in the PNP and the concepts and discipline or lack thereof, they bring to this matter of leadership.
There are two things we would urge this fearful PNP crowd to reflect upon:
Jamaica faces a grave social crisis, which is owed in no small measure to the dysfunctional politics in which the country has engaged for a long time. Extrication from this crisis demands, among other things, a new approach to politics.
While regicide is not the norm in Jamaican political organisations, seeking a change of leader is not of itself high treason, and neither is it uncommon in the place from which we adopted and adapted our political process.
For instance, since 1990, the Conservative Party in Britain has had six leaders and of the group, only Michael Howard, in 2005, went of his own accord. The British Labour Party may not be as ruthless as the Tories, but Tony Blair's departure as PM last year was helped as much by a good heave as his own jump. The point is, as we have said before, the PNP is clearly in need of a renewal and a good debate over how or who should lead it can't be bad for the party - and certainly not for Jamaica.
published: Sunday | August 3, 2008
There is much mewling in the People's National Party (PNP) over the challenge for its [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]leadership[/COLOR][/COLOR] by Dr Peter Phillips, which belies the fact that this is a 70-year-old institution that likes to declare its capacity for ideas and deep commitment to democracy.
It would seem that people outside the PNP, which is to say the non-partisan majority of Jamaicans, invested greater faith in those declarations of principle, than many inside, and in the leadership of the party. The broad refrain from many in the PNP's top echelons is that Dr Phillips' timing is bad and that a contest now will lead to divisions and weaken the prospects for its early return to power. There is even an appeal to the historic importance of the year of the challenge, as if the 70th [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]anniversary[/COLOR][/COLOR] is invested with a special quality that would be despoiled by a questioning of ethos and reasons for existing.
The big problem, apparently, in the hierarchy of the PNP is its hope that global economic challenges and legal difficulties faced by several of the MPs of the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Jamaica[/COLOR][/COLOR] Labour Party (JLP) over their eligibility to sit in the House, will lead to a meltdown of the Golding [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]administration[/COLOR][/COLOR] and an early election.
Then, the PNP would easily return to the office - as if political power is an end in itself, bereft of broad principles and big transformational ideas. Which, perhaps, it is, for those who see politics largely in terms of personal aggrandisement and for, as we say in Jamaica, the distribution of "scare benefits and spoils". Such an interpretation of politics, though, is the short route to corruption.
Robust discourse
Of [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]course[/COLOR][/COLOR], the PNP has a right, maybe even reason, to be concerned about splitting itself apart in an internal campaign. But it would, and, perhaps, does speak volumes about what that party is, or has become, if it can't at this stage of its existence, endure a robust discourse about its direction and future, and who is best able to carry this process forward, without the organisation disintegrating. Or, maybe it says more about the personalities that abound in the PNP and the concepts and discipline or lack thereof, they bring to this matter of leadership.
There are two things we would urge this fearful PNP crowd to reflect upon:
Jamaica faces a grave social crisis, which is owed in no small measure to the dysfunctional politics in which the country has engaged for a long time. Extrication from this crisis demands, among other things, a new approach to politics.
While regicide is not the norm in Jamaican political organisations, seeking a change of leader is not of itself high treason, and neither is it uncommon in the place from which we adopted and adapted our political process.
For instance, since 1990, the Conservative Party in Britain has had six leaders and of the group, only Michael Howard, in 2005, went of his own accord. The British Labour Party may not be as ruthless as the Tories, but Tony Blair's departure as PM last year was helped as much by a good heave as his own jump. The point is, as we have said before, the PNP is clearly in need of a renewal and a good debate over how or who should lead it can't be bad for the party - and certainly not for Jamaica.
Comment