The hour draws nigh. In just about twelve hours, approximately five thousand two hundred delegates of the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) will converge on the national arena to cast their votes for leader of that party. Theirs is no enviable task. In one corner sits the incumbent; the cool, calm, collected and self-styled transformational leader. He is a former Prime Minister, the former Minister of Education, the former Leader of Government Business in the House of Representatives, and current Leader of Her Majesty’s Opposition; his name is Andrew Holness. In the other corner sits the challenger. He is the self-styled “Man-A-Yard”, allegedly the best hope to return the Labour Party to government. He is the former Minister of Finance and the Public Service and current Opposition Spokesman on Finance. His name is Audley Shaw. As tomorrow’s vote draws closer, the pundits are busy making predictions as to who will emerge leader when the dust clears on Sunday afternoon. In my last few posts on this leadership contest, I urged delegates to choose Andrew Holness. I listed, as best as I knew how, the reasons Mr. Holness should be retained as leader of the party. I am now prepared to go a step further; I predict that Andrew Holness will be retained as leader of the JLP tomorrow. Here’s why.
If recent media reports are to be taken seriously, the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party is headed towards an explosive leadership challenge in November, when the party is expected to convene for its annual general conference. It is all but confirmed that the Opposition Spokesman on Finance, and the self-styled “Man-A-Yard”, Audley Shaw will challenge the relatively new party leader, Andrew Holness for his job. Considering the divisive and turbulent internal political history of the Labour Party, many people are expecting a bitter and damaging process to unfold. While I am of the view that a challenge is necessary, if only to ‘legitimize’ Holness who was anointed, rather than elected, leader; I am uncomfortable with the utterances which imply that Holness is a poor leader, and therefore must be deposed by a challenge.
Editor’s Note : The views expressed below are not my own. Javed Jaghai returns to Veritas with his take on Jamaica’s current political realities. Read. Reflect. Comment.
Jamaican politicians may be terrible leaders, but they are masters of political strategy. They understand our culture very well. They know how to appease us, they know how to mistreat us (and get away with it), and they know that we are familiar enough with each other to privilege loyalty and character over intellect and effectiveness.
Our past and present politicians must be held responsible for the state of Jamaica today. By the time the stalwarts who have served since my birth die, their obituaries will tell of how long they served and how dedicated they were to public service but will say nothing of how poorly they governed.
Jamaica is a very small island with a correspondingly small population. The interconnected webs of social and familial ties breeds familiarity, which, I believe, violates and degrades traditional means of guaranteeing accountability. We trust our elected representatives and we continue ‘fi gi dem a bly’ even though their record of accomplishment speaks volumes to their incompetency. When they consistently perform less than satisfactorily and especially when they fuck up, we excuse their ineptitude with superficial considerations like their so-called ‘good moral character’ and ‘commitment to the community’.
After two crushing defeats at the polls, the 69 year old Jamaica Labour Party has found itself at a crossroads. The party’s newly minted leader, Andrew Holness, has found himself caught between the agenda of the past and a desire to move boldly into the future. The party finds itself divided and fractured, with various segments peddling their personal ambitions – there is even talk of a coup to over throw the top echelons of the party. As all this unfolds, one can’t help but wonder if the party of Sir Alexander Bustamante has once again lost its way and whether it is doomed to repeat the sins of its troubled past. The most heinous of all these sins was the constant attempts to oust Edward Seaga.
The Simpson Miller led administration has made known its intention to accept the appellate jurisdiction of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), an occasion intended to mark Jamaica’s 50th anniversary of political independence from the United Kingdom. However, the plan seems set to stall as the parliamentary opposition has declared that it will not support the move without a referendum. That is, the matter must be put to the people for a vote; the Jamaica Labour Party is dead wrong. I am deeply disappointed that a matter so important is being stalled by our petty and partisan politics. It demonstrates the extent of our political immaturity and the Opposition Leader should be ashamed of himself. For his part, Foreign Affairs Minister, AJ Nicholson QC, has advised that the government would not seek a decision on the matter by way of referendum. He argues that this is unnecessary as no where in our constitutional arrangements or the Privy Council’s judgement on the matter is there a call for a referendum. I wholeheartedly support the PNP on this matter and urge all well thinking Jamaicans to do the same.
The darling of the Jamaican Government, Minister of Youth and Culture, Lisa Hanna has found herself in the line of fire concerning the growing controversy around the celebration of Jamaica’s 50th anniversary of independence. Pressure has been mounting on Prime Minister Simpson Miller to dismiss the St. Ann MP from the Cabinet over what is seen as incompetence and tardiness in the staging of the massive event. The controversy has now deepened as information emerged that the present government had changed the theme of the celebrations, as well as shelved the ‘official’ song chosen by the former administration. This has resulted in widespread confusion as to which song is now the ‘official’ one. Minister Hanna has denied that there was any tribalism associated with the changes made, but then the question stands, why change it?
Dr. The Hon. Peter Phillips, Minister of Finance, made his much anticipated opening presentation in the 2012/2013 Budget Debate last week. Dr. Phillips outlined to an expectant nation how the Simpson Miller led administration intends to finance the $612 billion Estimates of Expenditure he had tabled on May 10.