TO say last week was bad for the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) is to be very kind. The convergence of events involving the party gave substance to what I wrote a few columns back, that if the governing People’s National Party (PNP) is a disaster, the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) is merely a disaster waiting to happen.

The ruling by the Constitutional Court against Opposition Leader Andrew Holness in the case of undated letters of resignation his senators were asked to sign, ostensibly to discourage any of them from supporting legislation in favour of the Caribbean Court of Justice, came in the midst of his predecessor’s, Bruce Golding, testimony in the Tivoli Enquiry, as well as that of the former Minister of National Security Dwight Nelson. The testimonies were in line with the reasons the commission exists: dishonesty, ineptitude and moral turpitude.

Holness has more to come. The ruling in the case brought against him by Othniel Lawrence, to prevent his removal from the North West St Ann constituency, is scheduled to be handed down soon. Some feel that, too, will go against him.

For those involved in politics, but not particularly knowledgeable about it, the JLP’s problems largely explain why the PNP has been in government for 21 of the last 25 years. It is not because people are stupid, but such is the immaturity of the arguments that I have heard, instead of the root-cause analysis that the JLP needs to effectively address the negative subculture that has long been associated with the party. Tivoli the garrison, the Shower Posse, Jim Brown, Dudus, the Tivoli incidents, whispers of high-profile members being involved in criminal activities, all fuel this perception. If the JLP does not understand that its brand identity is far more negative than positive, it is in much worse shape than I think.

Jamaicans are proud people, and the mass of us — the ones with common sense, whom many tend to disrespect — know that real embarrassment is less about the way Portia Simpson Miller speaks, and more about people’s perception of us based on who our leaders are, what they have done historically, and what they continue to do.

This is not a comparison to the PNP, nor is it to suggest that they are great at governance. In truth, the party has not sufficiently honoured its own ideals: accountability, responsibility, protection of public funds from corruption, respect for the people, creating an enabling environment to help more people out of poverty. This is why, in 2003, following the JLP victory in the local government elections, I wrote that the PNP lost because of people’s frustrations with too much bungling and anxiety about quality of life issues that they are either too ignorant or too incompetent to address; because they have paid insufficient attention to dismantling the plantation culture that pervades the society, resulting in excessive emphasis on status rather than function in public service; because of too little emphasis on performance and accountability; and the tendency to relegate public offices to the level of their own little fry fish shops.

That was not an endorsement of the PNP. In the case of the current government, however, I recognise that it is moving in a way that governments had not from 1989 to 2011. Regardless of Portia Simpson Miller, some ministers are working and there are objective measures to show that they are achieving some success in tourism, crime fighting, and management of the economy, for example. The depth of our woes makes it difficult to appreciate the signs of progress, as they do the feeling that we are taking baby steps when what we really need are giant strides; but we must accept it where it exists.

Ultimately, it is not so much the government’s successes but the JLP’s propensity to roll from one round of “bangarang” to the next that mostly supports the narrative that the PNP is the better party, and logically should make a better government. The tragedy is that the two, often, do not effectively equate. The PNP, therefore, should take no comfort; it must do more to accelerate the pace of a progressive social order grounded in a modern constitution.

The JLP’s problems, meanwhile, must be seen in the context of what makes up an organisational culture, defined by Allan Kennedy as “the values, beliefs and behaviours that are shared by its members”, or what E H Schein calls “a pattern of shared basic assumptions that a group learns as it solves its problems”.

As the organisation learns what works, that wisdom is passed to new members as the correct way to think and problem-solve. In other words, “the organisational culture provides a framework to interpret core beliefs; serves as the basis by which decisions are made, acceptance is granted, rejection occurs, and truth determined”. A positive culture reinforces core beliefs and behaviours that a leader desires, while weakening those he/she rejects. A negative culture is toxic, poisons the organisation, and hinders growth, experts say.

If Holness had inherited a strong culture of honour — a determination to act within prescribed ethical boundaries, written or unwritten, from within the JLP or without — he would not have asked his senators to essentially pay for their seats with a pledge of loyalty; not to the country, but to their party. If the senators were committed to any such code, they would not have signed them either. If the society, over time, had demanded better of those who seek high office, the way forward would have been clear.

The best we could have hoped for from Holness, the leader, was a break from the past, but that takes grounding in one’s own principles, emotional maturity, mental toughness, a vision of a new and better way, and the ability to sell it to his party. This was always going to be tough since so many are fixated on unseating him.

I hoped Holness had it in him, but right now I am stuck with the idea that his senators “bought” their seats; and if they did, it’s because Holness sold it to them.

Grace Virtue, PhD, is a social justice advocate.