Tweet
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD><SPAN class=TopStory>Polls and politics</SPAN>
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Claude Robinson
Sunday, November 12, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>In a recent programme on Nationwide @ Five looking at some missteps in the Portia Simpson Miller administration, I commented that the prime minister did not appear to have a firm grip on the reins of government partly because her leadership style was not suited to managing the day-to-day details.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=90 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description></SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>I suggested that she should appoint a deputy prime minister to manage governmental operations, thus freeing her to oversee policy direction and strategy and play to her own strengths of connecting with the Jamaican people. I suggested that Peter Phillips could be such a person.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The reactions have been plentiful, ranging from strong support for what seems to be an obvious idea to extremely negative views that the idea, implied an unfair criticism of the prime minister's managerial ability.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I am returning to the theme this week because the issue has remained on the agenda in light of the latest poll results, candidate selection issues in the governing People's National Party and, most importantly, because the issue offers an interesting framework for examining how we conduct a lot of public debate on important issues in Jamaica.<P class=StoryText align=justify>One of the more interesting aspects of the response has to do with the fact that I first put out the idea in a previous column (Sunday Observer, March 5), that is, several weeks before Mrs Simpson Miller was appointed prime minister.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At that time, I commented on the possible shape of the Cabinet and suggested that the prime minister-designate would not make any radical departure from the P J Patterson Cabinet despite the wish of many of her supporters to jettison the men who had opposed her.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=120 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description></SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>I argued that Mrs Simpson Miller would retain Omar Davies in the finance portfolio because "she would not want to spook the financial markets (domestic and international) by appointments that suggest seismic shifts from the policy framework that Davies has nurtured for more than a decade, albeit with only tiny economic growth and job creation."<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the case of the minister of national security, I wrote, "And she would not want to signal to our international partners in the anti-crime effort that there will be any shift from the resolve demonstrated by Phillips to go after drug dealers and the 'big men of violence' at the community level."<P class=StoryText align=justify>More to the point in debate now, I wrote, "In addition, Portia's own leadership style and temperament are such that she is not going to be bogged down in the nitty-gritty of the administration of government.
"Thus, she may very well follow the Bustamante model in the 1962-67 JLP government when Donald Sangster, as deputy prime minister, was effectively in charge of the day-to-day running of the government.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Everything that Portia has shown in more than three decades of political life suggests that she will follow that model and be more of an activist prime minister in the role of 'motivator-in-chief', dispensing hope, and inspiring people to achieve even beyond their own perception of their capability.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"On the other hand, she may very well take on the role of government administration and the tough security portfolio to give the lie to
<SPAN class=Subheadline></SPAN></TD></TR><TR><TD>Claude Robinson
Sunday, November 12, 2006
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
<P class=StoryText align=justify>In a recent programme on Nationwide @ Five looking at some missteps in the Portia Simpson Miller administration, I commented that the prime minister did not appear to have a firm grip on the reins of government partly because her leadership style was not suited to managing the day-to-day details.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=90 align=left border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description></SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>I suggested that she should appoint a deputy prime minister to manage governmental operations, thus freeing her to oversee policy direction and strategy and play to her own strengths of connecting with the Jamaican people. I suggested that Peter Phillips could be such a person.<P class=StoryText align=justify>The reactions have been plentiful, ranging from strong support for what seems to be an obvious idea to extremely negative views that the idea, implied an unfair criticism of the prime minister's managerial ability.<P class=StoryText align=justify>I am returning to the theme this week because the issue has remained on the agenda in light of the latest poll results, candidate selection issues in the governing People's National Party and, most importantly, because the issue offers an interesting framework for examining how we conduct a lot of public debate on important issues in Jamaica.<P class=StoryText align=justify>One of the more interesting aspects of the response has to do with the fact that I first put out the idea in a previous column (Sunday Observer, March 5), that is, several weeks before Mrs Simpson Miller was appointed prime minister.<P class=StoryText align=justify>At that time, I commented on the possible shape of the Cabinet and suggested that the prime minister-designate would not make any radical departure from the P J Patterson Cabinet despite the wish of many of her supporters to jettison the men who had opposed her.<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=5 width=120 align=center border=0><TBODY><TR><TD></TD></TR><TR><TD><SPAN class=Description></SPAN></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><P class=StoryText align=justify>I argued that Mrs Simpson Miller would retain Omar Davies in the finance portfolio because "she would not want to spook the financial markets (domestic and international) by appointments that suggest seismic shifts from the policy framework that Davies has nurtured for more than a decade, albeit with only tiny economic growth and job creation."<P class=StoryText align=justify>In the case of the minister of national security, I wrote, "And she would not want to signal to our international partners in the anti-crime effort that there will be any shift from the resolve demonstrated by Phillips to go after drug dealers and the 'big men of violence' at the community level."<P class=StoryText align=justify>More to the point in debate now, I wrote, "In addition, Portia's own leadership style and temperament are such that she is not going to be bogged down in the nitty-gritty of the administration of government.
"Thus, she may very well follow the Bustamante model in the 1962-67 JLP government when Donald Sangster, as deputy prime minister, was effectively in charge of the day-to-day running of the government.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"Everything that Portia has shown in more than three decades of political life suggests that she will follow that model and be more of an activist prime minister in the role of 'motivator-in-chief', dispensing hope, and inspiring people to achieve even beyond their own perception of their capability.<P class=StoryText align=justify>"On the other hand, she may very well take on the role of government administration and the tough security portfolio to give the lie to
Comment