Clearly the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) is gravely impaled on the horns of an organisational-leadership dilemma sufficient for the party to continue to haemorrhage — if even “denyingly” so. The JLP is between a rock and a hard place politically, financially, and perceptually, and can only blame itself for its current state of affairs.

Politically, the JLP is not in a state of readiness to contest early elections. Financially, the party does not appear to have enough money to take on a national campaign for an election that is most likely to happen in the second quarter of 2016. And the internal bickering has turned off a sizeable cluster of “swing” voters who continue to house the perception that the JLP is nothing more than a political dollhouse.

All of that is unfortunate. However, the existing wounds in the JLP require more than ice bags and pressure dolls. These short-term tools will not do. The more fundamental solutions must address the root problems that continue to tear down the party. The JLP’s infirmities have to do with:

(a) how its officer corps manages the organisation’s culture and behaviour;

(b) how they treat the informal philosophical construct of the party; and

(c) the party’s stubborn reliance on, and preference for, giving deference to leader-centrism as a model without realising that this model also allows the leader to operate with a centralised mindset, which is antithetical to organisational flexibility that the rest of JLP prefers.

The leader-centrism automatically makes the party leader larger than the sum of all other party membranes, even though the leader is simultaneously positioned to appear democratic, consultative and to operate within certain undefined boundaries. The problem with this leader-centric practice in the JLP is that the party has no internal mechanisms to deal with the methodological individualism that is central to the leader-centric model it embraces.

These, as I see them, are slick arrangements and curious ways of empowering a leader beyond reasonableness, whilst dismembering the collective arms of the rest of the organisation. More than anything else, leader-focus and autonomy, together with the mismatching of organisational culture and an informal philosophical construct, are responsible for most of the problems devilling the party.

Case in point, for several months, Audley Shaw kept asking Andrew Holness to share the post-mortem analysis of the 2011 election defeat. Shaw’s request was a reasonable one, because, on the face of it, the report was done for, and on behalf of, the party — not as a personal favour to Holness. Up to the time of the leadership contest in 2013, Holness had still not released the full findings of the appraisal team to either party or country. Instead, and consistent with leader-centrism, he centralised ownership of that report by keeping it to himself. It is anybody’s guess if he has since released the findings. Actions such as these are bound to cause tension and create suspicions and they certainly have created disquiet.

That notwithstanding, let us accept that to be caught between the rock and a hard place is akin to finding oneself in a dire predicament. Let us also assume that the adage refers to a dilemma in which at least two possibilities exist, neither of which is acceptable, but the inevitability of having to make a decision is as prominent as the offensive possibilities they present. If one accepts this assumption, then one would most likely accept, as sensible, the JLP’s use of pretence to communicate how united, strong and ready it is, simply because the alternative would be just as perilous. Regrettably, though, by employing this tactic, the JLP could well be boxing itself into a corner for the PNP to release intense jabs at the core of its election machinery and organisational mid-centre. What are the viable alternatives, if any, for the JLP and, can it extricate itself from its position between the rock and the hard place?

Many are quietly saying, “Perhaps the JLP should rethink its strategy of faking unity and be real with the country about its current challenges. Some are suggesting that it’s best for the JLP to “tell the truth, tell it early, and tell it all.” But therein lies the rub. Any such admission would be akin to putting butter at a pussycat’s mouth expecting it to exercise restraint. If the JLP were to admit to the existence of wide or dangerous chasms in its officer rank, then the ruling PNP could easily capitalise on the disunity as a legitimate issue on which to seek voter adjudication. As I see it at this “psychological moment” (to quote former Mayor of Port Maria Noel Walker) anywhere the JLP turns, macca bound to ‘jook’ it; and therein lies the painful dilemma for Bustamante’s party.

The JLP knows that it is between a rock and a hard place; no wonder it dispatched Leader of Opposition Business in the House of Representatives Derrick Smith to propagate reams of nonsense about party unity. I can hardly remember the last time a seasoned politician presented a more cockeyed and widely deceitful assessment of the party to which he belongs. While Derrick Smith would have us believe that all is well within the party, and that public perceptions of disunity and internal clashes are but minor pimples in the pathway to prosperity, the truth is, we know that all is not well.

Put another way, judging by Derrick Smith’s utterances and deliberate composure, if the JLP is so united and ready to face the electorate, the PNP can just go full speed ahead and call early elections. What if the PNP calls the JLP’s bluff and announces Tuesday, December 15, 2015 Election Day? Would the JLP be truly ready? Hallucinations are common among people who find themselves between a rock and a hard place. Their view of reality is impaired by narrowness of their options. Obviously, it is no different of political parties.

Some senior JLP officials are far more at ease pursuing the old politics of deceit, deflection and denial. It is as clear as day that the party has outgrown its own capacity and ability to govern itself in a way that reassures the very electorate it is appealing to and relying on for support. By allowing internal feuds and the “carry-go-bring-come” phenomenon to last for as long as it has, the party cannot now merely wash its hands of its own doings. Those who carry tales to the leader are always expecting rewards; rewards which bear no relationship to the value of their tale.

As previously argued in this space, the politics of appeasement — particularly organisational appeasement — is not a sustainable strategy to achieve long-term party unity. It is unsustainable because political resources and patience are limited relative to the constant investment that organisational appeasement requires. If reshaping the JLP requires tough decisions, then tough decisions must be made. As Napoleon once said: “If we are going to take Vienna, then let us take Vienna…” Sending mixed signals and overruling decision after decision is a recipe for disaster.

Politically, the JLP has few options as far as its leader is concerned. The party cannot dump Holness any time soon. The party has to play the hand it has been dealt. Andrew Holness was elected leader by delegates, therefore, any attempt to oust him, outside of another leadership election, would most likely not go down well with these regular Labourites. Perceptually, a large cohort of citizens believe the leadership conundrum is a self-inflicted wound that the JLP must own and sort out. The general perception is that it could take the JLP well into the new decade to sort out its image as the mother of dysfunctionality.

It is true; politics is as much “the art of the possible”, as it is the art of the impossible. Consequently, any card can play. The JLP may be more resilient than many believe and can metamorphose faster than it takes a caterpillar to become a butterfly. A great many politicians and political parties have conquered political death. The history of political Lazaruses is replete with colourful stories about many who rose from the dark domain and have had significant triumphs of their own — triumphs that continue live on. Therefore, no one should be too precipitate to use the latest in a series of perennial internal tug-o’-wars to write off the JLP, or dismiss it as a political nonentity.

Burnscg@aol.com