Geof Brown

This column a week ago suggested, albeit cautiously, that Portia Simpson Miller could have the winning edge in the four-person contest for leadership of the People's National Party. It was an educated speculation based on a socio-political analysis of the broad picture rather than a micro dissection of delegate potential vote parish by parish.
The speculation was vindicated in the results. But, of course, other analytical approaches could also have been successful in getting it right. There is an old philosophical principle that states one can cut several ways to arrive at the same answer or result. So there is nothing to brag about here. But there are lessons to be learnt from Portia Simpson Miller's spectacular triumph. For one, delegates' tendency to vote according to the dictates or preferences of the elected members of parliament for their constituencies, can no longer be taken for granted.

Fellow columnist Lloyd B Smith has termed the phenomenon "the revolt of the proletariat" (Observer, February 28). There is some merit in that observation but it is not new. In the absence of published prediction polls, one had to rely on straws in the wind. One such was supplied by first-rate journalist Cliff Hughes of Nationwide Radio talk-show fame. He walked the floor at one of the rallying conventions of the candidates and declared that delegates were thinking for themselves to a greater extent than he had previously noticed. I factored that observation in the speculation of last week that Minister Simpson Miller could have the winning edge. For if delegates were thinking more for themselves, it follows that they would be thinking along the lines of the wider society. As observed last week, the delegate pool represents, in that case, a microcosm of the wider society, rather than a skewed representation of it.

As long as the voting delegates remained obedient to the members of parliament representing their constituencies, their votes would be skewed to reflect the wishes of their political bosses, so to speak. Since the delegates had relatively freed themselves from direction of the bosses, they would tend to vote the way the wider society would. In that wider society, Portia Simpson Miller has been the most popular politician. But that was not all that would account for the delegate majority preferring Simpson Miller. The other "intervening variable" as statisticians would put it, was the fact of the majority of the delegates being poor or unemployed. That meant they would identify more with the candidate who had established a reputation of concern for the poor.

Such a candidate the majority of the delegates would obviously view as a likely economic saviour. Portia, of the four contenders, seemed best to fit the bill. She, after all, had clearest credentials for claiming working-class origins. This was partly the basis for the thesis of last week's column's "prediction". What we should also note, however, is that the Simpson Miller margin of victory, while a comfortable and decisive one, was far from the "crushing victory" over her nearest rival Dr. Peter Phillips, as claimed in the headline of the Sunday Herald for instance. The 6.2 per cent margin must leave the Phillips Solid as a Rock team with some consolation. That team worked the ground hard and in the process helped considerably to energise the PNP party base. In the contest with Team Portia also working hard on the ground, the net result is a reinvigorated PNP. So both the winner and the runner-up can claim almost equal credit for a renewed political party.

But the relative closeness of the outcome between the two top contenders could easily have resulted in a divided party. For Phillips was strong enough in the election result to have pushed for a consideration for the prime minister's post based on his much stronger support by the members of parliament. Bear in mind that the appointment of the prime minister by the governor general requires only the support of a majority of the members of parliament. But no such political crisis has occurred. Instead, the entire PNP parliamentary membership lost no time in unanimously falling in line behind Portia. And Prime Minister Patterson lost no time in announcing the unequivocal resolution of the possibly divisive outcome -- in parliament itself. Several observers have recognised the obvious: Patterson as a clever political craftsman has again preserved party unity. And well he might, for the JLP has apparently settled its protracted internal divisiveness and is therefore a potentially stronger challenge to the governing party.

There is another lesson here. Why didn't Dr Omar Davies, who ran a strong if late-start campaign, fare much better in the results? It seems to me that the "two-horse race" mentality, a syndrome in Jamaican politics, was at work. Voters will take favours, promise support, but mark their secret "X" for someone they think is more likely to win a general election. Davies as well as Blythe did run clean campaigns. It was, however, a two-horse race from day one. That fact too, was a declaration of this column.

Footnote: Mayor McKenzie, you owe me one for declaring my thesis was dead wrong and that Portia could never win! Check.

browngeof@hotmail.com

The Audacity of Art

Marjorie Whylie to receive Stella Gregory Award

Traditional Thanksgiving offerings at EVITAS