Tweet
Another month of agony
Mark Wignall
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Years ago, after the PNP win in October 2002 and just about the time when PJ Patterson signalled that he would not be facing the electorate at the next polls, the nation was set into phase three of an election alert. Then in early 2006 when Portia Simpson Miller won moderately in the PNP presidential race but strode triumphantly into the heart of the nation, phase two of the election alert was put into motion.
At that time pundits like myself were predicting an early election, maybe in July 2006. Some of us, like me, were firmly in the corner of the new prime minister, not so much because we saw her as the best possibility nationally - that is across party lines - of upsetting a debilitating status quo, but more so because we saw her as one of us who had travelled the long, hard way to attain "smaddy'" status in this country.
In fact, although we did not know it at the time, deep down, we were into our first real experience of living a vicarious thrill with "Portia" being the chief avenger who would stick it to those who had come to the belief that this country was theirs to overrun. Back then, we would have bent over backwards to ensure that nothing upset the placement and maintenance of "our" leader, not PNP nor JLP as a first consideration.
So we criticised those in her party who dared to point out her very obvious shortcomings. Although we ourselves were quite aware of them, we casually and conveniently fixed it in our minds that people in the PNP like Peter Phillips, Maxine Henry-Wilson, John Junor and KD Knight were the real charlatans, pretending only to represent "the people" while their collective objective was the maintenance of the class privileges. And of course, we who were born at a time where we saw how our parents and ourselves were poorly rated, opted to support "Portia" because at the time it was happening, it suited us to rabidly support her rather than scrutinise anything else about her.
We took on those who wanted her to debate policy and burning issues facing the nation. We stood like sentinels outside her door, bravely, if somewhat foolishly, defending her against all comers, especially those who were too rational in their criticisms of her. Those were the ones who offended us the most because we, who were not really fools, were forced to dig deep, in our stupid efforts to slot her outside of the range of these criticisms while tearing at the arguments against her.
Even worse, at strategic times, we were prepared to give up ourselves to the god of idiocy, if by doing so it would guarantee that "Portia" would travel unscathed.
The real truth was always inside us, but we considered ourselves justified in supporting her even though if we allowed our eyes to shine objectively, we knew that she was the least "qualified" of the bunch. In Peter Phillips and Omar Davies, we saw no soul, no vibrancy, no man bringing a presence to his slate of important policies. To be honest to ourselves, at that time we gave Phillips and Davies failing grades, even before they entered the examination centre.
To "Portia" we said: "No need to take the exam. You resemble us. You are us. You have passed. Go on and do your best, or for that matter, your worst. Right now all that matters is your immediate triumph."
So, as mid-2006 rolled around, we wanted her to enter phase one of the election alert. It is still my belief that had she called the election for July 2006, she would have obliterated the JLP, and quite probably, the political career of Bruce Golding.
That did not happen, and as it appeared to us that our worst fears were being realised, we ached for an October 2006 election. Those "worst" fears were: her inability to direct the affairs of men and women in her own party from whom, until recently, she had apparently been taking cues on leadership. With the internal problems close to breaking point, Trafigura entered and it forced certain factions in the PNP to close ranks.
At its worst point in October 2006, there was a regrouping of the PNP. This was done on the basis that the JLP was still not exciting the electorate, along with the fact that governmental corruption was still not seen as a "big thing" by Jamaicans. When a few decent men and women were needed to topple this PNP administration, the PNP opted for its own proximate survival.
Between October 2006 and now, those of us who supported the prime minister's triumph in February 2006 saw her moving in our eyes from Portia to Portia Simpson Miller. In fact, the prime minister did nothing too wrong, as far as Jamaican politics went. In the beginning she was never all or little of what we made her to be. Second, she never promised us, in words and in deed, anything more than just being what she had always been.
A publicly affectionate person, she always told us about her love for the poor and the dispossessed. So if she chose to embrace and kiss us, why should we blame her for that? Short of her affinity to re-distribute without a commensurate growth in and development of the economy (a PNP feature from Michael's time), she was just being true to the 1970s politics she had learnt from Tony Spaulding. That she could neither visualise her own stamp on leadership nor sensibly articulate a new direction in politics was not a concern to the party faithful, just as long as her legs could do a jig on a PNP stage.
We backed off on her even as we waited on the movement from phase two to the announcement of the actual election date. When we did, it was mainly by virtue of two realities. The first was, her aura and her "Portia love" were constructs which we in the media had brought to her true self. Second was, the myth that we had created had more than its fair share of warts and bumps as far as leadership went.
How, we asked, could she dare to claim leadership over a country with one of the widest gaps between poor and rich when her own constituency had been maintained as the worst socio-economically of the 60 in Jamaica? How, we asked, could she attempt the impossible of running a country when, at the first sign of a crisis (Trafigura), running to hide was her first option?
How could she run a country when the various factions in her party had only grudgingly come together for the sake of the coming elections? With the self-imposed scales removed from our eyes, we have begun to question her integrity on poor people's issues, her "touchiness" on criticisms and her real tendency to dictatorship. With all coloured spectacles removed, we must ask, what has she brought to the table different from, and better than what went before in the period 1989 to 2006?
Well, to answer that, the only response is - we foisted the myth that she is on ourselves and the nation and we must live with the result. At least, for another month.
observemark@gmail.com
Mark Wignall
Thursday, July 26, 2007
Years ago, after the PNP win in October 2002 and just about the time when PJ Patterson signalled that he would not be facing the electorate at the next polls, the nation was set into phase three of an election alert. Then in early 2006 when Portia Simpson Miller won moderately in the PNP presidential race but strode triumphantly into the heart of the nation, phase two of the election alert was put into motion.
At that time pundits like myself were predicting an early election, maybe in July 2006. Some of us, like me, were firmly in the corner of the new prime minister, not so much because we saw her as the best possibility nationally - that is across party lines - of upsetting a debilitating status quo, but more so because we saw her as one of us who had travelled the long, hard way to attain "smaddy'" status in this country.
In fact, although we did not know it at the time, deep down, we were into our first real experience of living a vicarious thrill with "Portia" being the chief avenger who would stick it to those who had come to the belief that this country was theirs to overrun. Back then, we would have bent over backwards to ensure that nothing upset the placement and maintenance of "our" leader, not PNP nor JLP as a first consideration.
So we criticised those in her party who dared to point out her very obvious shortcomings. Although we ourselves were quite aware of them, we casually and conveniently fixed it in our minds that people in the PNP like Peter Phillips, Maxine Henry-Wilson, John Junor and KD Knight were the real charlatans, pretending only to represent "the people" while their collective objective was the maintenance of the class privileges. And of course, we who were born at a time where we saw how our parents and ourselves were poorly rated, opted to support "Portia" because at the time it was happening, it suited us to rabidly support her rather than scrutinise anything else about her.
We took on those who wanted her to debate policy and burning issues facing the nation. We stood like sentinels outside her door, bravely, if somewhat foolishly, defending her against all comers, especially those who were too rational in their criticisms of her. Those were the ones who offended us the most because we, who were not really fools, were forced to dig deep, in our stupid efforts to slot her outside of the range of these criticisms while tearing at the arguments against her.
Even worse, at strategic times, we were prepared to give up ourselves to the god of idiocy, if by doing so it would guarantee that "Portia" would travel unscathed.
The real truth was always inside us, but we considered ourselves justified in supporting her even though if we allowed our eyes to shine objectively, we knew that she was the least "qualified" of the bunch. In Peter Phillips and Omar Davies, we saw no soul, no vibrancy, no man bringing a presence to his slate of important policies. To be honest to ourselves, at that time we gave Phillips and Davies failing grades, even before they entered the examination centre.
To "Portia" we said: "No need to take the exam. You resemble us. You are us. You have passed. Go on and do your best, or for that matter, your worst. Right now all that matters is your immediate triumph."
So, as mid-2006 rolled around, we wanted her to enter phase one of the election alert. It is still my belief that had she called the election for July 2006, she would have obliterated the JLP, and quite probably, the political career of Bruce Golding.
That did not happen, and as it appeared to us that our worst fears were being realised, we ached for an October 2006 election. Those "worst" fears were: her inability to direct the affairs of men and women in her own party from whom, until recently, she had apparently been taking cues on leadership. With the internal problems close to breaking point, Trafigura entered and it forced certain factions in the PNP to close ranks.
At its worst point in October 2006, there was a regrouping of the PNP. This was done on the basis that the JLP was still not exciting the electorate, along with the fact that governmental corruption was still not seen as a "big thing" by Jamaicans. When a few decent men and women were needed to topple this PNP administration, the PNP opted for its own proximate survival.
Between October 2006 and now, those of us who supported the prime minister's triumph in February 2006 saw her moving in our eyes from Portia to Portia Simpson Miller. In fact, the prime minister did nothing too wrong, as far as Jamaican politics went. In the beginning she was never all or little of what we made her to be. Second, she never promised us, in words and in deed, anything more than just being what she had always been.
A publicly affectionate person, she always told us about her love for the poor and the dispossessed. So if she chose to embrace and kiss us, why should we blame her for that? Short of her affinity to re-distribute without a commensurate growth in and development of the economy (a PNP feature from Michael's time), she was just being true to the 1970s politics she had learnt from Tony Spaulding. That she could neither visualise her own stamp on leadership nor sensibly articulate a new direction in politics was not a concern to the party faithful, just as long as her legs could do a jig on a PNP stage.
We backed off on her even as we waited on the movement from phase two to the announcement of the actual election date. When we did, it was mainly by virtue of two realities. The first was, her aura and her "Portia love" were constructs which we in the media had brought to her true self. Second was, the myth that we had created had more than its fair share of warts and bumps as far as leadership went.
How, we asked, could she dare to claim leadership over a country with one of the widest gaps between poor and rich when her own constituency had been maintained as the worst socio-economically of the 60 in Jamaica? How, we asked, could she attempt the impossible of running a country when, at the first sign of a crisis (Trafigura), running to hide was her first option?
How could she run a country when the various factions in her party had only grudgingly come together for the sake of the coming elections? With the self-imposed scales removed from our eyes, we have begun to question her integrity on poor people's issues, her "touchiness" on criticisms and her real tendency to dictatorship. With all coloured spectacles removed, we must ask, what has she brought to the table different from, and better than what went before in the period 1989 to 2006?
Well, to answer that, the only response is - we foisted the myth that she is on ourselves and the nation and we must live with the result. At least, for another month.
observemark@gmail.com
Comment