IN an effort to win approval and support of swing voters, persuade undecided, and woo the politically frustrated, the re-energised, but ever-skittish Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) triumvirate took to the National Arena last Sunday for their 71st Annual Conference. They delivered a performance unlike the 70 before it. Chief among the troika was the fearless leader, Andrew Holness. He wasted no time in reminding his loyal minions of his greatness. He cleaned Portia’s clock before reasserting the obviousness of his manhood for everyone to hear. With pouted lips and a heliotrope -looking tongue, he declared: “I am different from Portia Simpson Miller…”

On the face of it, there is universal acceptance of this auspiciously refreshing declaration by a man who knows his roots. For, it would have been tantamount to a boyish application of false equivalence had he said otherwise. We know too well, Holness, not to accept or believe that because you are both fiercely competitive politicians that there is no difference between the diva and the driver. In other words, it would be a false equivalence to assert that because “we are all born naked then we are all no different from each other”. Of course, we are different from each other — thankfully so.

Reminding the huge audience of his loyalty to the truth and of his personal truthfulness, Holness said he paid the ultimate political price for being different in Jamaican politics. How different though? Obviously, taking a swipe at his political rival’s unfulfilled election promises, Holness declared inter alia: “I am not a liar.”

This is quite an interesting and powerful declaration. We should not allow this plant of sudden virtue to wither on the vines. Instead, we must nurture this young tree of truth as it runs along the treacherous terrains of Mavis Bank from which honesty must spring eternal. Statements like these must enter the annals of history, if for nothing else but posterity’s sake. Holness deserves an award for setting a standard from which he and his colleagues must never recoil.

Lo and behold, before the political pontiff accentuated his credentials, one member of the troika stepped up to the rostrum. Known for “ray-ray” politics, he had a bag of Outameni questions and scandals. And, boy, did he take it to Peter Phillips and Portia? Little did he know, however, that he was about to be hoisted by his own petard. Alas, “cock mout kill cock”. The Development Bank of Jamaica $80-million Outameni write-off that he accused the PNP of approving, occurred in 2011, under the JLP Administration and Cabinet of which Andrew Holness and Audley Shaw were senior members.

However, back to Mr Holness. He told his audience, wittingly or unwittingly: “I come from the same circumstances of all of you inside here. I was born in a one-bedroom board house, no one can tell me about poverty…” It may well be true that no one can tell Holness about poverty. Nevertheless, and without being pernickety, if one uses the simplest “truth-o-meter” to test the veracity of his “I am not a liar” guarantee, the glaring inconsistency between that proclamation and his “I come from the same circumstances of all of you…” should be disconcerting to say the least. Any survey of the conference floor would have revealed a potpourri of as many socio-economic classes as multiracial faces.

We may disagree with Holness’s politics and leadership style, but without a doubt, he has Jamaica’s interest at heart and we must salute his tenacity and embrace his courage. Holness’s romanticism is understandable, especially within the context of aspirational zest and there is hope because, according to him, “I want to change that poverty” [in Jamaica]. He reassured that spending time in opposition has allowed him to build a bus to “take on this mammoth task of restoring the nation on the right track”. It would have been good to hear of five things he would do differently to fix the problems. Saying Jamaica has “a new bus and a new driver…” may be enticing to the JLP base, but have we heard this before?

Holness made heavy weather of how different he is from Portia. To my mind, there is an obvious gender difference, yes. However, what are the other real differences? Well, based on his pronouncements, the differences are as clear as mud. That notwithstanding, is it reasonable to infer that the differences he alluded to pertain to leadership, integrity, political ideology, core competencies, emotional intelligence, and fixity of purpose? In the absence of objective benchmarks for measuring style over substance, let us accept these as salient issues to evaluate. To begin with, integrity is not always obvious, but both have operated honourably and competencies are greater than the gift of gab, or the lack thereof; both possess vastly different competencies.

The similarities between the two struck me as quite odd. In developing the “perception grid”, I realise that they understand Jamaica’s socio-cultural and economic problems, and are genuinely committed to improving the lives of their fellow citizens. Both can speak to the problems of rural life as well as to the testy vicissitudes of city life. Their early socialisation and exposure is apparent in their diction and general articulacy; yet they are brave and expressive individuals. Substantively, both have matured in their leadership roles. Besides the management of everyday “bread and butter” issues and, unlike the 1970s to mid-80s, there seem hardly to be any distinctive philosophical

or ideological political differences between them.

On the one hand, Simpson Miller has an irascible personality. She is tenacious, practical, self-aware and loyal, to boot. She reminds me of Bustamante, who did not suffer fools gladly. She is seemingly egalitarian and a leader who, for better or worse, appears to entertain unrealistic bouts of invincibility, coupled with the bad tendency to engage megalomaniacal theatrics as a strategy to elicit support. Portia possesses an admirable quotient of emotional intelligence (EQ). This has assisted her in putting together a “team of rivals”. The sheer brilliance of her strategy needs further study.

On the other hand, Andrew Holness has a high self-monitor, debonair to boot, idealistic and pedantic. He possesses less street credentials, but is more of a theoretician, particularly in his approach to problem-solving. Whereas Portia tends to tell you where to go jump off, Andrew appears to mask his extremely sensitive self beneath the veneer of a tough dude demeanour. He reminds me of Barack Obama, more hats than cattle. He appears willing to pursue avoidance instead of direct confrontation until evasion is no longer feasible. He will let you have it, but mostly in defence of his own position or cause. Andrew demonstrates sufficient intellectual ability (IQ) to instil confidence. Quite honestly, it is refreshing to hear him explain a position, if even extemporaneously. He has the gift of gab.

When all is said and done, however, “the proof of the pudding is in the eating”. For now, Andrew is different from Portia.

Burnscg@aol.com