THE audacity of former Prime Minister P J Patterson to remark, in rather contemptuous and piteous form, that he took “time out to respond promptly in order to avoid mischief and in the hope that he [Burns] will not remain forever confused by the facts”, reminds me of an emperor who, having served his time, continued to see himself as master of all he surveyed. Yet, never once had he accepted his role, proximate or not, in the ruination of his state.

I am not confused by the facts. If anything, it is the Most Honourable P J Patterson who may be confused. Then again, he may not just be as confused by the facts as he is severely embarrassed by them. I am not an opponent of P J, as he implied, I am a proponent of truth and fairness.

My interest in this particular exchange is to remind P J, as Albert Einstein once said: “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” By labelling ‘The second coming of P J Patterson?’ uninformed and misleading, Patterson might have unwittingly overlooked the generous sincerity with which it described the positive aspects of his tenure. He might even have been so completely inebriated by conceit that he could not acknowledge the graciousness with which the article regarded his personal political successes and legacy. It cannot be all or nothing, Patterson.

If he did not overlook those kind remarks, then I cannot but agree with him that my article was “uninformed and misleading”. In this regard, I would owe the Jamaican public an apology for effusively portraying the former prime minister in such a glowing and positive light. And since P J also viewed those polite and elegant descriptors to be “uninformed and misleading”, I also regret having used them to describe his tenure at the crease. P J knows all too well of the unfairness of a bowler not to notify the umpire of a change in his mode of delivery. In this case, a great many Jamaicans have called and have signalled that he has delivered a terrible “no ball” in his response to my rather “tame tome”.

Upon quick, but deliberate reflection, I’d advise Patterson to submit to his own doctrine, even as he attempts to save himself from his own demise. It would be bankable to remain fiercely loyal to his wise observation that “…Some people say things because they have to say something.” He should not, in retirement, genuflect to the unwise idea of becoming someone who “says things because they have to say something”. Furthermore, nothing I said in that piece was intended to be “a playful desire to cause trouble” — mischief as P J believed. I maintain that P J is now behaving like “Johnny come lately” in regards to his admonition of Phillip Paulwell for the slow pace of the ganja reform legislation. Dancing and prancing around the real issue of speed on ganja reform, as a way of justifying the non-action of his Administration, is insufficient.

I maintain that P J’s observation of the deplorable condition of the road leading to the Donald Buchanan Sports Complex in Treasure Beach confirms “the hands can’t hit what the eyes can’t see”. The poor state of the road has continued for many years. I maintain that he dutifully defended his bouts of silence and reclusiveness by invoking the rather cute quip, “Silence can only be misinterpreted, but not misquoted”. During his tenure as prime minister, many expressed concerns about Jamaica being on auto-pilot. Demonstrations abounded, some politically motivated, others out of genuine desire for better. Shouts of “we want justice; we want water; and we want road” were never scarce; so who it is that is confused, uninformed or misleading? As Anthony Patterson recently asked: “Where were his ears during those shouts; were they not working? Apparently, his eyes were on vacation, that’s why PJ did not see the poor state of the roads.”

The article which contained many questions — some of which the former prime minister responded to — was intended to be as frank, as bold, and as inquiring as it was, and for those reasons there shall be no retraction. Simply put, I like P J no less now than when I defended aspects of his stewardship as prime minister. I just love Jamaica more.

The facts are irrefutable and P J is certainly entitled to his opinions, but not his own facts. While there were accomplishments of significant proportions during his tenure, he and his Government failed, and failed miserably, to establish priorities in a way that was tangibly transformative. There is no need to parrot the many “solid achievements”. However, the Patterson-led PNP Government of the 1990s did not optimise most of the opportunities available to push this country forward. He and his Government had the greatest opportunity to reposition and reclaim Jamaica’s coveted place, economically and otherwise, as the pearl of the Caribbean, but they dropped the ball.

There was absolutely nothing misleading in that piece; neither mischief nor confusion of facts. But as Chinua Achebe said in his novel entitled Things Fall Apart, “An old woman is always uneasy when dry bones are mentioned…” If anything, the article exposed what many in the People’s National Party are quietly grumbling about but do not have the fearlessness to hold him by the seat of his pants and say to him, “P J, silence is golden. You are opening up the proverbial can of worms and giving fodder to the Jamaica Labour Party for the 2016 General Election. People are not idiots; their memories are not short; they are not as confused as you may think they are, and they are equating the volume of hypocrisy emanating from your lips to manna falling from above. So quit while you are ahead.”

It remains curious to me as to whose, or which article Patterson was really talking about, because nowhere in my piece did I intimate that during his years as prime minister he had not always operated on the premise that, while it was absolutely essential to satisfy International Monetary Fund (IMF) conditionalities, IMF programmes “should never cause us to shift our focus and lose sight of our ultimate goal to build an economy that generates sustained growth, creates jobs, and is competitive in the global arena”. But since Patterson brought this up, and violated his own rules on silence, it is more than fair to ask him to tell the Jamaican people why, when he was prime minister, Jamaica never achieved GDP growth north of two per cent annually. Explain why more emphasis was not placed on rehabilitating existing roads. Explain how the financial sector meltdown of the 1990s, and the subsequent $140-billion debt left by the Finsac bailout, is impacting today’s fiscal realities. It is useful, however, to know that audacity is best exercised outside of the preservation of conceit and always in pursuit of honesty, humility and progress.

Burnscg@aol.com