THE claim by People’s National Party (PNP) councillor for the Falmouth division, Mr Garth Wilkinson, that he emerged as the popular candidate to represent the North Trelawny constituency in the next general elections and the outcome of that make interesting reading.

According to Councillor Wilkinson, on March 21 this year the PNP executive voted that he should be the person to replace Dr Patrick Harris, who has said he intends to give up representational politics.

Councillor Wilkinson also told us that a poll conducted in the constituency showed that he was the preferred candidate.

For whatever reason, the PNP hierarchy has seen it fit to overlook Councillor Wilkinson and has inserted, instead, Mr Patrick Atkinson as the candidate to replace Dr Harris.

According to the party, Mr Atkinson, an attorney, was recommended by its candidates selection panel. The party also, in a news release, reaffirmed that it was the right of the president to make the final determination on the matter of candidate selection.

As we have already seen, Mr Atkinson’s selection has not gone down well with PNP supporters in the constituency. In fact, so angry were some that they protested in the streets and burnt party T-shirts bearing the image of President Portia Simpson Miller.

While we will always defend people’s right to express their views, we cannot endorse the burning of anyone’s image, simply because inherent in that behaviour is a connotation of violence that runs counter to our notion of dialogue being the best way to resolve disputes.

During that protest last week, the PNP supporters told us that they would have preferred Mr Wilkinson or former People’s National Party Youth Organisation president, Mr Damion Crawford, to be their political representative.

Both Messrs Wilkinson and Crawford have since said they will abide by the decision of the party leadership. But while it is their right so to do, we find the process hypocritical, given the PNP’s position on national issues.

For isn’t this the same party that keeps on complaining that the Government is taking decisions absent of consultation with the Opposition and the people of the country?

It would seem to us that the PNP would stand on stronger ground to make the demand of the Government if it practised, in the case of North Trelawny, the same sort of consultation with the people of the constituency that it accuses the Government of ignoring.

We expect that in response to our observation the PNP will make the oft repeated claim that its business is private. In fact, it is a position conveniently adopted by both the PNP and the ruling Jamaica Labour Party whenever questions relating to internal problems are asked.

But the parties can’t have it both ways. For despite the fact that they are not recognised by the Constitution, they hold sway over large segments of the population to whom they turn for support in their quest to govern.

And that support, we submit, is best won with adherence to the principles of transparency, accountability and consultation with the people whose backing they seek.

Had the PNP consulted with its supporters in North Trelawny it would, we believe, have been spared last week’s embarrassment.