POLITICAL parties in Jamaica have certain cycles. For the party in power, as is the case this time round with the governing People’s National Party (PNP), year three is when the election machinery is ramped up in order to be ready for any eventuality, such as a local or general election.

It is well-known that constitutionally the prime minister may call an election if and when he or she chooses within the time constraint set out by the Constitution or convention. Indeed, there have been instances when snap elections were called because the timing would prove advantageous to the ruling party. A classic case was the 1983 General Election, which was called by the then prime minister and Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leader Edward Seaga on what the PNP alleged was an old voters’ list. The PNP refused to contest the election, and so Jamaica had a one-party government until 1989 when the JLP was swept out of power. Suffice it to say that, despite that state of affairs, there has been no substantial evidence that would suggest that Seaga used that scenario to permanently derail the democratic, bi-cameral process which is influenced by the Westminster model that this country espouses, and for this history may well be kind to him.

Recent opinion polls have indicated that the Opposition JLP is leading the PNP by a reasonably wide margin, both in terms of perception of governance and leadership. JLP head Andrew Holness is being described as a better leader than PNP President Portia Simpson Miller, which would suggest to the wider electorate that the nation is ready for a change of government.

It is no secret that a party will ridicule the polls when they are not in its favour, but embrace them when they paint a positive outlook. But, behind closed doors, it is a different drama that may well play out as is now happening.

In the case of the JLP, notwithstanding the positive polls, there is still the view among many Labourites that their party is not ready because, in the final analysis, it is organisation that wins elections, not popularity, and they are not organised neither are they highly motivated. In the meantime, there are elements in the PNP who fervently believe that as long as Andrew Holness is leading the JLP, it (the PNP) will remain in the winner’s circle. Interestingly, this is a view that is also held by several influential men and women in green who strongly feel that Prince Andrew is not the answer for a JLP victory at the polls.

Meanwhile, in the bowels of the PNP are certain individuals who want to see the back of Sister P and are plotting her departure. This is not a well-kept secret, as on two occasions in recent times the Comrade Leader has alluded to this and has dismissed any such challenge. After all, she continues to bask in the knowledge that the people love her even if there are those in her own party who do not.

For the JLP, the smell of winning may be tickling Labourites’ nostrils, but that party is still in the throes of disunity. And it has been historically proven over and over again that the PNP is much better at cauterising its wounds of division and coalescing around the party’s main agenda, while the JLP remains seemingly fractious and, like Humpty Dumpty, continues to have a great fall. The latest kerfuffle involving Holness and former Senators Arthur Williams and Christopher Tufton will no doubt help to make matters worse for the leader and ultimately the party. Thus, the smell of victory may well be overcome by the noxious smell of disunity.

For both parties, the writing is on the wall in terms of their respective fortunes at the polls. Against the scary backdrop of dwindling interest by the electorate in voting, both parties will have to rely heavily in their core support, bearing in mind that just a few thousand votes separated them both from being first past the post. ‘Die-hearted’ supporters of both parties usually comprise about 17 per cent each of willing voters, but this alone cannot take either to a resounding victory. However, without this energised base, “dog will nyam their supper”.

Traditionally, the PNP base has proven to be more fixed and loyal than the JLP base, which tends to stay home if it is disgruntled or turned off. This played out in the 2011 General Election and may well occur again unless the JLP is able to come out of its current quagmire battle-ready.

In this vein, Andrew Holness needs to take a page out of Portia Simpson Miller’s book when it comes to keeping the party together. He should learn that it is better to keep your enemies close to you rather than have them in the distance. After the last bruising Portia versus Peter presidential battle, Sister P deliberately set out to mend fences to the extent that her arch-rival is one of her strongest Cabinet ministers at this time in the person of Dr Peter Phillips. She also ensured that her Cabinet not only comprised persons loyal to her but who may have supported Dr Phillips.

After the Shaw/Holness encounter, it became painfully obvious that Holness did not want to surround himself with too many of his detractors, which came fully to the fore when he debunked Williams and Tufton from the Senate and reshuffled his Shadow Cabinet in such a way that looked more punitive than conciliatory.

As it stands, the big elephant in the room for the PNP is the spectre of a one-term government which hit the JLP in 2011. For the JLP, the agony of disunity is likely to be similar to the dreaded chikungunya affecting all weak or diseased areas of that party’s body politic, and hence cramps its style on the hustings.

Needless to say, for many concerned and well-thinking Jamaicans, the absence of a viable alternative will remain a clear and present danger to our democracy.

Lloyd B Smith is a member of parliament and deputy speaker of the House of Representatives. The views expressed are his own and do not necessarily reflect those of the People’s National Party or the Government of Jamaica.

lloydbsmith@hotmail.com