SUPPORTERS of the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) may disagree. However, it seems to this newspaper that there are pluses to the Senate seat crisis which ended up in the courts.

For one thing, such issues invariably bring greater clarity to law and constitution. For that, we suspect, the judiciary and legal fraternity will be happy.

Just as important, Senator Chris Tufton says the “lessons that should be learnt by all the parties involved should serve to strengthen us as a democracy, to strengthen us as leaders”.

This is an aspect that can’t be downplayed. Not just the JLP, but the ruling People’s National Party (PNP) and various fringe political groups should have recognised the unexpected and unpleasant consequences of actions not properly thought through.

We would be naïve to expect that, within the JLP, the tensions and resentments will quickly subside. For, as was pointed out in this space last week, the situation now leaves JLP leader Mr Andrew Holness on the horns of a political dilemma with his opponents holding strong ammunition to use against him.

This will be a test of Mr Holness’s ability to bring unity and cohesion, even while taking a step back to acknowledge that he erred. How he manages it, and how quickly, could determine the JLP’s ability to credibly challenge the PNP in parliamentary elections, which are constitutionally due in less than two years.

But Jamaicans would be amiss, we think, should they seek to lay blame only at the feet of Mr Holness. The fact is that the JLP has a long history of nasty and very public internal quarrels and schisms which have hurt its aspirations to govern.

We suspect it has much to do with the internal workings of governance within the Opposition party dating back to its famed founder Sir Alexander Bustamante, whose word, from all accounts, was the law.

We stand ready to be corrected. However, we suspect that culture of ‘one donship’ has had much to do with the problems of the JLP, including the infamous ‘Dudus/Manatt’ affair. That, we believe, more than any other single element, led to their loss in the December 2011 elections after just one term in government.

And we shouldn’t ignore Mr Pearnel Charles’ comment on national television which seemed to suggest that undated letters of resignation were being signed by JLP senators decades ago.

We note in yesterday’s Sunday Observer, Mr Holness’s outline of the JLP’s pragmatic philosophy as regards management of the economy and society. Yet we found no mention of the JLP’s philosophy regarding people participation in terms of the party’s internal organisation and externally to the wider community.

This is an issue to which we believe the party must pay attention.

For better or worse, most Jamaicans enjoy debate and the exchange of ideas. They strongly dislike being dictated to.

If internally a political party short-changes democratic practice and is intolerant of debate and opposition, it could well make the mistake of carrying over such habits to national governance. Sooner or later that approach is sure to reap the wrath of the populace.

The PNP should also be careful. We have noticed an unhealthy trend in that party in recent years for its leadership to ignore time-honoured principles and seek to foist decisions, including choice of political candidates, on constituency organisations and their delegates. The PNP should ‘tek sleep mark death’.