Dear Reader,

Let’s be clear about one thing. The selection of Andrew Holness by his peers to become the next JLP leader and consequently prime minister has nothing to do with putting “country first”. Lest the people doing the talking think that we are all just a bunch of fools, it is simple arithmetic.

You select the man who has the highest score in the polls in order to enhance your party’s chances of winning the next election. It wouldn’t have mattered if the candidate was a baby on the breast or a grey-haired old man; the selection was entirely about who is leading in the national polls, and that man happens to be Andrew Holness.

In fact, if it were “country first”, we would have expected a vigorous discussion about the candidate’s qualifications to become commander-in-chief — does he have a clear national vision, an articulated position on jobs, crime, and the economy. What is his foreign policy experience, and is he a nation “unifier”? If it were “country first”, Andrew Holness would probably not be the front-runner. His selection seems a straight and simple “poll pick”.

Having settled that, the critical question is, “Is Holness the best candidate to become the prime minister?” What is his track record? What has he achieved in his four-year tenure as education minister? Can he inspire and lead the Jamaican people, especially at this difficult juncture in our history?

There are other crucial considerations. Is Holness prepared to stamp out corruption in his own party, and how? Is he prepared to call for a dismantling of garrisons, and when? Does he have the courage to dissociate himself from criminal gangs linked to the JLP? Will Holness command the respect and obedience of the older heads in the party and his Cabinet?

Holness is going to have to tell the Jamaican people if and how he intends to leave outside the door of Jamaica House any “baggage” he might be carrying. Holness’s stewardship of the people he represents in Parliament must be one of the main barometers used to measure and predict his success as the prime minister of Jamaica.

What type of MP has Holness been? Aside from the usual handouts and the election-time giveaways, have the lives of the citizens of West Central St Andrew been improved in any significant way, and has the MP been vigilant in fighting for the people who elected him to Parliament?

I am curious to know what the unemployment rate among the youth in West Central St Andrew is, and what the MP has been doing over the last 14 years to address the problem.

It is important for the leaders of the JLP to understand that succession in the Jamaican context is not the same as the “rites of passage” that royal monarchies enjoy in some other countries without quibbles or questions.

The “entitlement mentality” ought not to apply here, and the Jamaican people have a right, and must ask the tough questions that will hopefully provide some indication of what type of prime minister Andrew Holness will be.

Then there is the future PM’s tenure as education minister. “Has the educational landscape changed or improved under his watch? How hard has the minister fought to prevent budget cuts, knowing that the country cannot afford not to educate its people? Why hasn’t a young man like himself sought to introduce African history and the philosophies of Marcus Garvey into the school curriculum as critical identity and self-esteem building blocks for children? In fact, what is Holness’s philosophy on education?

I have been concerned about some of the utterances made by the education minister over the years regarding parents and schools. One of them called for the arrest of parents who don’t send their children to school.

It was clear from the statement that the education minister did not have an understanding or appreciation of the hardships unemployed parents face and the deep psychological baggage parents themselves carry around as a result of their own unfulfilled lives and the realities of living in poverty.

But it seemed incredible to me that the minister failed to understand that parents need jobs – not prisons. Furthermore, any talk of imprisoning parents would mean locking up the mothers since most of the fathers are absent. What would happen to children when the mothers are put behind bars? If Holness was genuinely interested in solutions, he would simply link the PATH benefits to parenting education. It would be easier than finding prison space.

To add even more insult to injury was the education minister’s “failed schools” pronouncement, made without the ministry taking any responsibility for what must have been a long “failing” process under his watch. Worse than that was the complete lack of sensitivity to the damage inflicted on those children who have had to continue attending a “failed school”. If Andrew Holness didn’t understand that, what he said and did were wrong, I shudder to think what will happen when he is vested with more power.

For whom the bell ‘polls’, Mr Holness, it ‘polls’ for thee.

bab2609@yahoo.com