THE fallout among the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) following the bitter contest to elect a party leader can be likened to post-traumatic stress disorder among soldiers who have been through the hell and terror of war.

In politics, as in military conflict, it’s a condition that can be successfully treated by time and appropriate interventions.

Sooner or later the JLP will settle down. If it is sooner, the party will heal the wounds of war fairly quickly; unite around the undisputed leader; and develop a political programme to persuade voters that the JLP has the people and policies to wrest the reins of Government from Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller and the People’s National Party (PNP).

If it’s later, both the winners and losers of the leadership contest that created much bad blood can resign themselves to long occupation of the Opposition benches in Parliament.

For much of last week, the news cycle was dominated by turmoil on both sides of the leadership divide. The disquiet and thinly veiled threats contrasted sharply with the co-operative rhetoric from both sides on Sunday at the National Stadium complex immediately after the results were announced.

“When we join forces, no political party can beat us,” declared Andrew Holness after it was announced that he had polled 2,704, or 57.3 per cent of the votes, compared to 2,012 (42.7 per cent) for the challenger Audley Shaw, a former deputy leader of the party.

In a similar extension of the proverbial olive branch of unity to his former rival and now leader, Mr Shaw said: “I am willing and ready to join with you to rebuild the Labour Party.”

The words, the handshakes and the body language on the platform suggested that the JLP had moved beyond the bitterness and divisiveness that characterised previous leadership challenges, especially during Edward Seaga’s 30-year rule in which he crushed dissent with an iron fist.

True, in the six weeks of campaigning leading up to the delegates’ conference last Sunday accusations and counter-accusations flew in all directions; uncharitable insults were hurled from platforms, and some undemocratic tendencies emerged in unguarded moments. Some of these will surely emerge in PNP political advertising in the next election.

Some of these excesses and name-calling are normal in political contests where the ultimate prize — power — is at stake. That’s true here in Jamaica and in all countries that engage in the blood sport of competitive party politics.

The secretariat, under the direction of General Secretary Dr Horace Chang, came in for some justifiable stick for bias against Team Shaw. On the other hand, party Chairman Robert Montague deserves commendation for handling his job tactfully and even-handedly.

Labourites behaved in an exemplary fashion at the National Stadium complex. So, on balance, it was a fair fight and the contest demonstrated the democratic maturing of the JLP.

Legitimacy no longer in question

The victory legitimised Mr Holness’s title of JLP leader, which was conferred on him by members of the JLP parliamentary caucus in 2011 without a contest. No immediate challenges are likely. At issue now is what he will do with the strong mandate he has been given.

The first challenge is to bring the party together after a divisive election. “I know that every Labourite is concerned about whether or not we will be able to unite,” he told the gathering.

He added: “I will do everything in my power to make sure the party is united.” And he acknowledged his special responsibility when he declared: “Unity starts with the leader.”

But just a week after the big win and a memorable exercise in democracy, unity was in the balance. At the time of writing (Thursday night) it was anyone’s guess as to when the party can be deemed to be united.

Specifically, three issues were unresolved: composition of the minority side of the Senate; the fate of two (out of four) deputy leaders of the party; and completion of the ‘shadow cabinet’.

Mr Holness, as opposition leader, appointed all eight Opposition members of the Senate under authority of the Constitution of Jamaica. Last week, he signalled that he wanted them all to resign (to the governor general) to give him a free hand to make new appointments.

On Thursday, the Jamaica Observer reported that five senators were “understood to have agreed to hand in their resignations”.

The position of one was uncertain, while the two most prominent Opposition senators — the Leader of Opposition Business Arthur Williams and former shadow cabinet spokesman Dr Christopher Tufton — had refused to comply with the ‘wish’ of the opposition leader. They have argued that Mr Holness has no constitutional basis for the request.

By expressing the wish for the resignation of all eight, Mr Holness may be exposing himself to political risk by desiring something that he does not have the constitutional basis to demand, nor the leverage to secure. The demand may only deepen the turmoil.

With respect to the two deputy leader positions, there is a dispute about the legitimacy of two of Mr Shaw’s supporters, namely James Robertson and Chris Tufton, who insist they were properly elected unopposed at their respective Area Council meetings and the papers were sent to General Secretary Dr Horace Chang.

Dr Chang ruled on the eve of the leadership election that the nominations were improper as they had not been placed on the prescribed forms. It has also been reported that the documents cannot be found.

The issue will go before the party’s Central Executive at the scheduled meeting on December 1. If the meeting determines that the posts are vacant, then fresh elections for the two deputy leader positions will have to be scheduled.

Given Mr Holness’s strong hand from his mandate, it is not inconceivable that he could get his wish at Central Executive. He could also get key allies elected and so realign Central Executive into his own image.

However, it seems clear that Mr Robertson and Senator Tufton were duly elected as deputy leader for their respective area councils. To use the political capital from the leadership election to reverse those decisions would be unwise.

The matter of the shadow cabinet is the least contentious because it is entirely within the authority of the leader to determine the composition of the body.

Elections have consequences. As the winner, Mr Holness has the sole authority to name the shadow cabinet. Mr Shaw — having lost — is not in a position to make demands on the leader as he did in a letter that he unwisely released to the media shortly after what was supposed to be a confidential discussion with the leader Tuesday morning.

Mr Shaw and Ed Bartlett declined the spokesman positions offered. Mr Shaw said, “It is clear to me that the reason for your desire to have the resignations of the Senators is to allow for the exclusion of Dr Christopher Tufton and others who did not support you in the recent election.

“I believe that these issues are being used to pursue a non-unifying path, especially against Dr Tufton, which I find totally unacceptable.” It is natural for Mr Shaw to try to protect his allies, but he has limited room for manoeuvre.

For his part, Mr Holness will want to disprove his critics who challenged him because he was seen as weak and ineffective. So he cannot be seen to bow to Shaw’s demands.

But Mr Holness cannot ignore his claim as a “transformational leader” who wants to strategically reposition the JLP for the 21st century. And he must also remember that political parties have a major objective of winning and holding State power. That involves bringing rivals and allies under the same tent. That is the test of leadership.

kcr@cwjamica.com

Audley Shaw (right) and Dr Christopher Tufton consult during the JLP leadership election last Sunday. Shaw, after losing to Andrew Holness, has placed a few conditions on accepting a spokesman position in the shadow cabinet, one of which is the question of Opposition senators resigning to give Holness a free hand to make appointments. Shaw has said the move is designed to get rid of Tufton and others who did not support Holness in the election. It is natural for Shaw to try to protect his allies, but he has limited room for manoeuvre.

JLP General Secretary Dr Horace Chang (left) walks with party leader Andrew Holness on Holness’s arrival at the National Stadium complex for the internal leadership election last Sunday. The JLP Secretariat, under Chang’s leadership, came in for some justifiable stick for bias against Team Shaw.