When one is transformational one does not have to consistently speak about it.

It was Margaret Thatcher who said, “Power is like being a lady… if you have to tell people you are, you aren’t”. So why does Andrew Holness have to keep singing the word transformational? Think about it.

When I think of a transformational leader the one that comes to my mind, created the Students’ Loan Bureau, the Institute of Jamaica, was instrumental in the development of Ocean Boulevard, created Things Jamaica, pushed for Ocho Rios to be a major tourist destination, and transformed it from a little fishing village, stabilised the dollar, spanked Michael Manley in the 1980 General Election, buried democratic socialism, hence rescuing us from communism, created 179,000 new jobs, and I could go on and on. Edward Seaga, never once said anything about being transformational. He lived it.

With all this transformational talk coming from Holness’s supporters on social media, it dawned on me, why is virtually all the negativity coming from one side? Why are they being so personal?

Again, I will look to history, because it usually repeats itself. After all it was Margaret Thatcher who said: “I always cheer up immensely if an attack is particularly wounding, because I think, well, if they attack one personally it means they have not a single political argument left.”

We have witnessed the likes of Wheatley, Babsy, Warmington, Pearnell, Smith to name the noteworthy few, along other less-known people chant all sorts of sad things about Audley. These are some of the same people who were once among his greatest admirers — at least in the public eye — calling him the best finance minister and hailing his stewardship of the country’s finances. So, what has changed? Why the insecurity and the negativity?

Shaw has said that he will adopt the “malice to none approach”. If he wins and sidelines anyone then he would come under immense and uncomfortable scrutiny from the public, after all, his campaign is about “bringing back the love”.

Some claim that persons who believe that delegates should be able to choose the leader are trying to “mash up the party”. I think that it is because allowing the delegates to vote will result in the shifting the power base of the party from a “religiously” appointed few to the majority of the people, the masses, the working class, the poor cane cutter who historically was looked down on by the intellectual elite. These delegates are asked to climb over the mountaintop to secure victory for elections. Why not give them a say in who leads, even once?

In the end, people will know if whether or not Holness is really transformational. Those of us who are used to politics can see some things from a mile away.

Finally, I think Audley Shaw is transformational. In the 1980s, when he was in charge of investments at JAMPRO, he was instrumental in bringing lots of investment into the country. Audley did not just talk about it, Audley did it! In 2007, when he debated Dr Omar Davies, he promised to usher in a period of low interest rates, which Omar said was impossible, he did it! He managed the economy so well that we could have tuition-free education and abolish user fees at public hospitals. He did this during the worse global recession in 80 years.

It is time now for the JLP to grow up. But it cannot, if its own leader refuses to do so. It is full time now that the JLP changes course.

damionheslop@yahoo.com