AS of yesterday, we are in the season of Lent. It is a time to meditate upon our sins and to repent. It is a time to accept correction, even if the mistake made is not sinful. I am thinking of the unnecessary back-and-forth wrangling about the judgement in the Constitutional Court that two resignations from the Senate were invalid. But there are other things to be corrected also. Let me set the example first.

I would like to thank Tony Golding for correcting me online about the process as far as the pardon signed under duress in Trinidad in 1990 is concerned. Tony Golding was a senior student at Jamaica College (JC) when I was a junior student there in the 1960s, and his older brother Bruce Golding (later, prime minister) was head boy of JC when I was in second form.

And the correction is that it was the president of Trinidad and Tobago who signed the pardon under duress, not the prime minister, who in any case did not have such power. The Supreme Court of Trinidad and Tobago upheld the pardon, but on appeal to the Privy Council the pardon was deemed invalid. However, no arrests were made. I hasten to correct this so that no student at any level is misled in an examination.

Having set the example, I move on. Simple mistakes in stating the locations of places might come as no big thing to us in a world where we really have some very serious problems to worry about. But Radio Jamaica broadcasters, for example, continue even after being corrected by me, and perhaps others, to state in newscasts that Rockfort is in St Andrew when it is in fact in the parish of Kingston.

This can affect students who might need just one more correct answer to pass an examination. A student so misled could even be a relative of the very person who prepares news items with that mistake. An adult student at a university or college should be mature enough to research everything and should know not to rely totally on the media for facts. But there should be a penalty in law to protect students who are under 18 years of age from careless adults in the media who make such mistakes. And the media house in question should be obliged to make the correction.

I now return to the whole saga of the invalid resignations from the Senate. I could hardly believe my ears when Andrew Holness’s first reaction was that the judgement would not change the composition of the Senate. I asked myself who was advising him. He sounded like a schoolboy trying to get out of trouble. It was so juvenile that I was embarrassed for him.

And, yes, Andrew Holness did apologise, but it was qualified and seemed to be an attempt to appear as an innocent bystander who was injured by being there at an unfortunate time. Was he was trying to prevent another leadership challenge, which occurs more often in political parties that are leader-centric than in others that are not?

From its inception in 1943, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) rallied around its leader Alexander Bustamante. He ruled both the JLP and the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU) with an iron fist. The JLP and BITU members did as Bustamante instructed or they were told to leave. This happened even in the House of Representatives when Bustamante told members of the House of Representatives to get out of his party. But the members of the JLP and BITU worshipped him and sang “we will follow Bustamante till we die”.

While the PNP has become leader-centric to a certain extent, it is a matter of degree. I do not think that the PNP, with all of Portia Simpson Miller’s obvious popularity and charismatic appeal, is as much as 50 per cent leader-centric, on the one hand. The JLP, on the other hand, is up to 95 per cent leader-centric.

On page 244 of Alexander Bustamante and Modern Jamaica, George Eaton revealed Bustamante’s concern when he was retiring as stated to him by Bustamante himself. The elder statesman was concerned that the moment he stepped down the JLP leadership would be divided by internecine warfare. And from the day Bustamante stepped down as leader of the JLP the rivalries and the rifts started. Norman Manley, Michael Manley and P J Patterson never expressed such a worry about their succession in the PNP.

In 1967 when Donald Sangster succeeded Bustamante and was sworn in as prime minister, it was the beginning of quarrels over who should be deputy prime minister. Sangster did not appoint one. In 1971, when Hugh Shearer was still prime minister, The Gleaner headlines blared ‘Split in the Cabinet’. The divisions during Seaga’s leadership are now legendary. Bruce Golding, who had founded the National Democratic Movement (NDM), and later returned to the JLP, had to contend with those who thought that he was ‘NDMising’ the JLP.

Should Holness resign?

The ruling PNP might not think so as he might be far easier to defeat than Audley Shaw. I would prefer Audley Shaw as JLP leader because I believe that the PNP would feel obliged to promote Peter Phillips to the position of prime minister; he might stand a better chance of defeating Shaw if the JLP makes that change.

If there is another challenge, Holness might win — just as Seaga won his referendum in 1975. But I do not think Holness can unite the JLP, just as Seaga could not reunite the JLP after 1989 as he had been able to do in 1980.

To gain victory at the polls party unity is a key factor. In 1990, in England, Margaret Thatcher staved off every challenge to oust her but, in the end, her husband said to her, “Maggie, it is time to go.” Thatcher could not unite the conservatives for a fourth consecutive victory, although she had won three straight times for the conservatives and she had been Britain’s prime minister for 11 years (1979-90). She stepped down and her successor John Major gave the conservatives their fourth consecutive victory. I believe that Holness should do the correct thing by resigning, and move on. He is young and could wait around and be elected JLP leader again in 10 years’ time.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com