IF there were a piece of advice that Opposition Leader Andrew Holness should readily accept it would be for him not to practise Machiavellianism without first understanding all, not just some, of its precepts, purpose and potential. Concomitant to that, if Holness intends to copy American Republican-style politics, particularly the Grover Norquist Tax Pledge model, then he must become intimately au fait with the limitations of Norquist’s pledge, because it has no effect on the constitutional arrangements of the United States Congress. Norquist’s pledge is purely political and economically one-dimensional. By the way, did Andrew Holness make a pledge to Edward Seaga not to allow the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) to see the light of day?

If Holness chooses to anchor his entire political future on just the one aspect of Machiavelli’s teachings, for example “The end justifies the means”, then he can most certainly “pack his bags and go”. At least, on the face of it, this preemptive move would save him from becoming the next Prince Commodus, as well as from the indignity of having to suffer an eternity of political embarrassment. Commodus, a Roman Emperor, was groomed to succeed his father as ruler but appeared to possess a weak character and was easily influenced by others; he eventually failed.

Neither can there be, on Andrew’s part, the slightest misunderstanding of the mechanics of manipulative power, nor the slenderest of misreading of the symbiotic relationship between power and control. Therefore, the second piece of advice that Holness should accept is to learn to distinguish between his elbows and his ears. There are times when he must “elbow” those around him because they should not always have his ears or close proximity to his thoughts. As Niccolò Machiavelli himself said: “The first method for estimating the intelligence of a ruler is to look at the men he has around him…”

Holness should realise by now that, in order to practise Machiavellianism successfully, he must subscribe to a particular brand of political fearlessness that makes it easy for him to accept the entire doctrine of consequentialism. I am purposefully conflating consequentialism and Machiavellianism because, in my mind, the two are inseparable. The basis of consequentialism “holds that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgement about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct”. In other words, a consequentialist accepts that if a goal is morally important enough then any method of achieving it is acceptable, and that one should judge the value of an act by its consequences.

For argument’s sake, let us consider the following scenario: Maas Joe hires Miss Puncie to pick apples for him to sell in the market. While picking the fruit, Miss Puncie realises that there are hundreds of hungry children living adjacent to Maas Joe’s farm. She feels an instant obligation to feed the entire community of children Maas Joe’s apples, but without his permission or knowledge. When Maas Joe discovers what is happening, he fires Miss Puncie immediately. The neighbourhood goes up in turmoil and Maas Joe’s house and farm were set ablaze and he lost everything. Question: Does this make Miss Puncie’s actions legal, morally acceptable and right, and Maas Joe’s illegal, immoral and wrong? The fact that Miss Puncie feels it to be “morally important” to feed the hungry does not give the neighbourhood the right to damage Maas Joe’s personal economy and life. Implicit in this arrangement is the readiness and willingness of the practitioners to engage unethical, unconstitutional and even sleazy behaviours — all of which conflicts with the theory of what is morally important — just to achieve a particular outcome.

Well, given recent legal developments pertaining to Holness’s deliberate actions, how then, in good conscience, can he continue to hold himself up as the touchstone of righteousness, or even as an example of a good leader, contriteness aside? Undoubtedly, Holness can no longer claim not to be a consequentialist. Certainly not, having undertaken the consequentialist approach in conceptualising, conceiving, delivering, nurturing, archiving, and using the pre-signed letters of resignation against two senators (Tufton and Williams). For, as we all know, Holness “must and bounded” JLP Senators to abandon their consciences and independence as a means of complying with the party’s dictates to block the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) from ever becoming Jamaica’s final appellate court.

Furthermore, and inconsistent with the Machiavellian doctrine, the Jamaican Supreme Court, in the case of Arthur Williams v Andrew Holness, ruled that the request for and procurement of pre-signed and undated letters of resignation by Holness from persons to be appointed as senators, upon his nomination, was inconsistent with the constitution, unlawful and, accordingly, null and void. The court also declared the use of pre-signed and undated letters of authorisation to effect the resignation of senators from the Senate of Jamaica is also inconsistent with the constitution and is therefore invalid. Consequently, Dr Christopher Tufton and Arthur Williams remain senators, thus rendering the consequence of Holness’s actions offensive.

It is often said, “A week is a long time in politics”, but for the politically epileptic JLP, these last few weeks have been like a thousand years in torment. The JLP is suffering, yet its general secretary, Dr Horace Chang continues to behave like Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf. Saeed al-Sahhaf was the Iraqi information minister during Saddam Hussein’s reign, who consistently denied American presence and bombing over Baghdad during the Gulf War, even as fatalities and casualities mounted around him. Hardly anyone, save and except for Delroy Chuck, is honest enough to call a spade a spade. Then again, this might just be happening to the JLP because, as Karl Samuda once declared, the party is a composite of “Yes-men, wimps and lackeys”. No one “dares to be a Daniel, and no one dares to stand alone,” and the JLP will forever remain dysfunctional.

The party has been bouncing like a sponge ball, from crisis to crisis, with no end in sight. Worse yet, those who lead it have been swinging from limb to limb like monkeys. Not even the grand seigneur of the party — Bruce Golding — was spared from the avalanche of political grenades falling on the party last week. He had to dial back his initial rejection of a United Nations $22-billion assessment of the economic cost to the country because of the Tivoli security forces incident.

Then, in the midst of its distress and pain, its leader, Prince Commodus Andrew Holness, saw it as a matter of high priority to seek refuge behind his Facebook page to advance his wimpishness and to declare, “The JLP will win the next election”. Never mind that the JLP is always declaring that “it going win” only to end up losing. And never mind that it was only hours before Andrew’s nonsensical Facebook posting that the police emphatically declared as false the so-called death threats against his and Dr Horace Chang’s lives. None of these happenings ought to have surprised any well-thinking Jamaican, because this sort of conspiratorial, mercurial behaviour is part of the JLP’s DNA and it does not appear to be going anywhere, anytime soon.

If the drama surrounding the pre-signed letters, the court ruling, the death threats, the Tivoli Enquiry, the declaration of victory and the inter-party mess were not so serious, they would make for sustained but great comic relief.

Burnscg@aol.com

[naviga:ul]

[naviga:li]

HTML[/naviga:li][/naviga:ul]