DECISION-MAKING is not always the slam-dunk activity some people think it is, especially if the decisions come with a thousand tentacles. In politics, as in other spheres of endeavour, balancing the opportunities and risks inherent in certain choices is analogous to deciding which bottle of poison to drink; knowing that any choice, or a combination thereof, is bound to produce the same result, since there are no variations in either bottle size or the lethalness of the substance they contain. This cannot be an easy task for anyone to contemplate, let alone to execute, without some measure of mental angst. Then again, politics is not for the faint of heart.

Certainly, Opposition Leader Andrew Holness is not as weak as many in the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) are claiming. If there were lingering doubts about his swagger, his pronouncements at last week’s press briefing to announce his Council of Spokesperson would have removed all doubts. Holness fired a huge shot across the bow of his ship, but more pointedly at Chicken Little, and reminded [him] them that, “It is not sufficient to just jump on every scandal; it is not sufficient to raise every issue of concern…the voters are expecting from us [JLP] a direction. They want to see what distinguishes us from the government…”

Brilliant, Captain Obvious, brilliant! You should begin the process of change by seizing your own advice. For, boy, you milked the NHT-Outameni issue to the hilt during the Westmoreland Central by-election.

The reshuffled Council of Spokespersons boasts a few bright sparks and new faces. I am particularly proud to see Delano Seiveright, Marlon Morgan, Robert Morgan, Kamina Johnson-Smith, Floyd Green, and Robert Montague included in the slate. These individuals, I believe, are brilliant, purposeful and equally passionate about Jamaica’s future and development and will perform to the best of their abilities. When I look at their collective faces, I am encouraged that, despite the travails and challenges we face, all is not lost, because none of these young people have foolishly given into the cynicism that is ever so present and persistent.

Having said that, though, I cannot overlook the implicit micro-managerialist approach the Captain has taken by arrogating unto himself a valise of portfolio responsibilities. Holness wants to be “master of all he surveys”. He has retained development and defence, institutional reform, economic growth, human resources, and governance. What the devil is wrong with Andrew? Is he so unaware of the overlapping nature of these portfolios, and of the potential for conflict and confusion? If Chicken Little is in charge of shadowing finance and planning, then what is Holness doing shadowing development and economic growth? Is this another attempt to minimise Chicken Little? One word of advice to the good Captain, sometimes “less is better, and more is worse”; as Captain, you should shed the excess weight.

That aside, sometimes politicians merely pretend to be struggling with certain decisions because the perception of mental torment is more valuable to their cause than the sheer effortlessness with which they make some decisions. It is within this context that we should examine the latest happenings in the Opposition JLP. To begin with, it is reasonable to wonder how Andrew Holness intends to reconcile his decision to resurrect and reinstall octogenarian Michael Henry as a member of his freshly minted Council of Spokespersons, having accepted Henry’s resignation in 2011 as minister of transport and works.

Lest we forget, the auditor general had raised deep concerns over findings that there existed “no evidence of work done for a $23-million project that was signed off on by the NWA as having been satisfactorily completed.” The auditor general also found glaring mistreatment of the US$400-million JDIP project by Henry’s ministry. Concomitant to those adverse findings by the auditor general was the Office of Contractor General’s (OCG) discovery of serious irregularities in the procurement process of $62-million worth of office furniture with money from the Palisadoes Shoreline Protection and Rehabilitation Works Project. It is anybody’s guess how the JLP intends to dislodge this record from the minds voters in any future election.

For, while nothing criminal was announced by either office, these glaring signs of incompetence and mismanagement should be sufficient grounds on which to allow Henry’s 2011 resignation to stand as a permanent bar from future councils and cabinets.

In fairness to Holness, however, having evaluated the opportunities and risks, and knowing that he can always pretend to have wrestled with this particular decision to resurrect Mike Henry, he made clear that “This [Council of Spokespersons] is not a reflection of what a JLP Cabinet will look like in power, and it should not be interpreted as such…” Thank goodness, Captain Obvious, this is nice to know. More than anything else that the Captain might have said at the press briefing to announce his new Council of Spokespersons, this one statement confirms he has nothing to reconcile and he is fully satisfied that his political conscience is clear.

He made it unequivocal, though indirectly, that while he willingly succumbed to internal pressures to cauterise the political bleeding, by naming over 30 people to his council, he will discard whatever useless bandages there may be once he wins the next elections. Who are the most expendable among the ranks? Holness’s latest actions are purely political and confirm that politics is more a creature of convenience and less an offspring of principle.

Undoubtedly, Holness is not the first, and he certainly will not be the last politician to act this way. Sometimes, politics requires of decent men to behave similarly to when “a dog returns to its vomit”, (Proverbs 26: 11) and, like “a sow that is washed returning to her wallowing in the mire”. It is my considered view that, more than anything else, Mike Henry’s resurrection and reinstatement in Holness’s humongous Council of Spokespersons is part of a bigger strategy to minimise internal party conflicts. However, in a party where people seem more interested in becoming chiefs and less motivated by the benefits of providing the leader with good followership, the latest move may have a short shelf life.

This brings me to the subject of political appeasement. Political appeasement, both strategically and tactically, is not uncommon. The use of appeasement by Holness, as reflected in the latest chess game, confirms that he is not the political neophyte some make him out to be. He understands the politics of connectivity and that the Clarendon Central constituency is vital to the JLP’s electoral success, but moreso that Mike Henry’s presence and victory will not only ensure that the JLP carries that seat, but at least two adjacent constituencies. Knowing as he does that internal conflicts, if allowed to mushroom, could thwart his plans, Holness acted reluctantly but smartly. He has effectively postponed future infighting until after a certain date somewhere beyond 2015.

By way of history, appeasement in the political context “is a diplomatic policy of making political or material concessions to an enemy power in order to avoid conflict…” The term and practice of “appeasement” describes the foreign policy of British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain towards Nazi Germany. It is a widely held view that the greatest shortcoming of Chamberlain’s policy and practice of appeasement allowed Hitler’s Nazi Germany to grow too strong. One sincerely hopes that the same fate does not befall Holness, as he appeases those who staunchly supported Audley Shaw’s bid to replace him as party leader. While there are no guarantees that appeasement will work, loyalty and trust are quintessential qualities for successful outcomes, and therein lies the problem for the JLP. There is a serious deficit of trust in the JLP; “it’s every man for himself”.

Burnscg@aol.com