Much to the surprise of some, the recent Bill Johnson opinion polls showing the popularity standings of the Prime Minister versus the Leader of the Opposition seem to be rather contradictory, if not befuddling.

GEOF BROWN

Indeed, a popular cartoonist depicted both the PM and the Opposition Leader tearing up and tossing away the poll results as being foolishness. On the other hand, the same poll source showing a very definitive lead of Portia Simpson Miller over Peter Philips in any likely competition for leadership of the People's National Party (PNP), has shocked quite a few. Neither set of polls should have been the surprise either turned out to be. And both make some kind of sense when closely examined.

In the polls showing contrasting popularity of the present government versus the Opposition, the PNP has a clear lead of six points. This means, as the pollster pointed out, that if an election were held today, the PNP would be returned as the government. How can this be for a government which is barely past honeymoon stage and which has so far not committed any massive blunder? To understand this phenomenon, we need to go back further than recent events.

The basic proposition is what John Maxwell the journalist once pronounced. Jamaica, he said in effect, is politically PNP country. When therefore the JLP wins, he argued, it is by the PNP's default. In short, the government is for the PNP to lose rather than for the JLP to win.

Those who find the proposition unsettling and invalid, or both, need only look at the 18-plus years spent in the political wilderness by the JLP while the PNP completed four terms in office. Recall too, that when the JLP under former PM Eddie Seaga lost the elections in 1989, that government had done a pretty commendable job of repairing the country after the disastrous Hurricane Gilbert of 1988. Yet it seemed the country couldn't wait to give the government the boot. It was hard to believe that only eight years earlier the same JLP had decimated the PNP in a landslide victory. And but for the snap election of 1983 called by the JLP government and which the PNP refused to contest, the JLP might not have seen even the eight years it did in power.

Fast-forward to the general election of 2007 when the PNP under the popular leader Portia Simpson Miller was still recovering from internal wounds from its recent leadership contest. That party should therefore have lost the elections by a wide margin as many pundits confidently expected.

Instead, the JLP won by a whisker. Even now it is in danger of being toppled as a government, if it should lose a couple of seats in Parliament because of the dual citizenship issue. Further fast-forward to the present. The JLP government came to power promising much, some of which like free tuition in schools, it has already delivered. But external factors, especially the astronomical rise in the price of imported food and oil, have thwarted any relief in the cost of living, which could have boosted the government's profile.

Like a disappointed lady who reluctantly turned away from her first love to another lover who promised a better material life, the country now appears to turn wistfully, though not yet fully, to its old love. Hence the six-point popularity lead of the PNP and the vindication of the "Maxwell doctrine". But why then the preference for Prime Minister Bruce Golding over Portia Simpson Miller as head of the government? What we are apparently seeing is a discriminating electorate which is expressing its emotion versus its hard-nosed perception. In effect, it seems to be saying, "Although we love Portia rather more than Bruce, we believe that Bruce is the better technician when it comes to making the machine of state work optimally."

Now, that does not seem exactly logical, does it? No, but it does make some kind of sense when considered against the background outlined above. Don't expect politics to follow rationality as in a corporate business entity. The prospect of a PNP victory if a general election were held today, is not unlike the scenario of contests between former prime ministers PJ Patterson and Eddie Seaga. Although Seaga was considered the better financial technician, the more popular PJ was nevertheless the one who kept winning elections, even in a floundering economy. And the relevant poll shows how off-the-mark uptown verandah talk can be.

Kingston and St Andrew Corporate Area is not Jamaica. Commentators, intellectuals and academics do not rule the thinking of ordinary country folk. This is borne out by the poll which shows Portia Simpson Miller currently leading the acknowledged better technician Peter Phillips by a staggering 18 points, if there was a run-off now for leadership of the party.

The prospect of a definitive defeat for Peter in a run against Portia at present makes some kind of sense by the following political analogy. In past Canadian politics, Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, not unlike Portia Simpson Miller, or Michael Manley in his time, was a highly popular politician. After some mis-steps Manley made, the electorate fell out of love with him and he suffered a stunning defeat in the general election. But within months after a successor government with a far less popular prime minister was defeated in Parliament on a no-confidence vote, Trudeau won a huge victory in the consequent national elections. In short, his charisma carried the day after the spanking given him by the electorate. Charisma in politicians tends to trump other qualities of worthiness in their opponents. Portia's national charismatic profile tends to trump the worth of her leadership opponents who have a more limited popular base. For now, anyway.

In the long run, the politicians who understand the dynamics of personal popularity versus technical competence are the ones more likely to prevail.

browngeof@hotmail.com or geofbrown07@hotmail.com

Trousers in Denim

Cream of the 'Crop'

Cheeky's World