Tone deafness is a metaphor that describes a person’s unawareness of the mood or sensitivities of his or her target audiences. It also describes a serious misreading of one’s own pitch and tone formation. For the sake of lively ingenuity, conjure up a situation in which a pianist is busy playing his piano to a very large audience, thinking he is thrilling everyone, when in fact, the audience is having an adverse reaction to the disharmonious musical presentation. He continues to ignore their resentment, until the audience grows completely disinterested and hostile.

It was one heck of a struggle resisting that “pianist” imagery of Prime Minister and People’s National Party (PNP) President Portia Simpson Miller during her address to members of her St Andrew South Western constituency last Sunday. Simpson Miller took unkindly to a newspaper description of her leadership style, visibility, and lack of involvement in certain party and national issues as tantamount to being “missing in action”. She did not like that newspaper headline one bit, perhaps because it accurately depicted her hands-off approach to leadership.

Portia bobbed and weaved around the pertinent issues of leadership before landing on the soft shoulders of foolishness to much applause from the audience under her spell, but to the chagrin of the wider audience who watched on television or listened on radio and on whom her political future depends. By now Simpson Miller should know that politicians are not sacred cows; a consequence of that knowledge is for them to prepare and develop a thick skin because there is a particular inevitability that, at some point in time, criticisms will come.

To begin with, the position of prime minister imposes on the holder of that office certain responsibilities, if even unwritten. Chief among these responsibilities are:

(a) regular communication and meaningful engagement with the citizenry;

(b) guidance and leadership of the Cabinet;

(c) articulation of government policies, decisions and accomplishments; and

(d) acting as the commander-in-chief for the various arms of the executive.

It has been Simpson Miller’s style to delegate and to allow ministers to own their respective portfolios. On the face it, and in principle, nothing is fundamentally wrong with delegation, and there are few benefits to gain from being excessively micro-managerial; therefore, she is on solid ground in defending this aspect of her leadership.

Nonetheless, we must never countenance situations wherein public officials, including prime ministers, think that every time they break wind it smells like sunshine upon daffodils. To suggest, as Simpson Miller narcissistically did last Sunday, that those who say she has been “missing in action” need to have their heads examined, is downright egotistical and ironically megalomaniacal. For, on the one hand, while Portia reprimanded the reporter for describing her as missing in action, she was, on the other hand, telling the country that she had asked every minister, every member of parliament and mayor to submit lists of their accomplishments over the four years since she assumed the prime ministership. If the accomplishments were so impressive, would the prime minister not be keeping score?

Her statement confirms she has been out of touch (missing in action) with happenings in her Cabinet and Government. Therefore, there should be no demur on her part to the news headline because confirmation of her estrangement came directly from the horse’s mouth. As my late aunt Ivy would have been wont to say, “But wait, you mean to tell me that Portia doesn’t know what her own Government has accomplished, she has to rely on other people to tell her?”

For the sake of sprightly ingenuity, conjure up another situation in which the chief executive officer (CEO) of a large company calls a press conference to persuade shareholders to retain or increase their investments in the company. The CEO starts by taking offence to a newspaper article that carries the banner ‘CEO missing in action’, but then proceeds to deflect questions from concerned shareholders by referring their questions to the various vice-presidents and heads of departments.

Let us role-play for a moment. Shareholder Longboat gets up and asks, “Madam CEO, can you tell us about the new marketing campaign to increase pork sales that I have been hearing on radio?” Madam CEO scratches her head before responding, “I do not know about that marketing campaign. You have to ask the vice-president of marketing about that, because I do not speak on every area of the company’s operations.” Dissatisfied with the CEO’s response, the shareholder grabs her pocketbook and leaves.

No sooner, shareholder Bighead gets up and asks a question. However, he is in no mood for the foolishness; therefore, he descends into a lengthy soliloquy before asking his question: “Madam CEO, I do not expect you to know the value of every piece of fixed asset the company owns, but could you tell me what the net profit was for the last quarter of 2014?” Madam CEO looks around, as if searching for a needle in a haystack, and then instructs the chief financial officer (CFO) to respond to Bighead’s inquiry. Now, does that not sound like a CEO who is “missing in action”?

Missing in action does not necessarily mean absent in body. Here is why. The country has been in the throes of a painful economic adjustment for almost three years now. However, the prime minister has all but abdicated her role as the commander-in-chief for communication and mobilisation. Portia purposefully lost her voice for a significant part of the last 36 months. Like a seasoned monarch, she appears on special occasions, cutting a few ribbons here and there, but not engaging the people. Yet, all of a sudden, now that she wants the people’s approval, she has rediscovered her voice, identity, sensitivities, sensibilities, and sense of purpose. Her usual excuse for remaining silent is predicated on fear that if she talks too much she could talk herself out of power. What utter nonsense and barefaced contempt for the people!

As if that were not bad enough, Portia’s narcissistic antics were on full display at last Sunday’s constituency conference. As she readied her troops for battle, she could not resist conflating the PNP with Portia; yet she claimed there is no “don” in the PNP. It is true; the PNP is bigger than any one individual. Consequently, it smacks of egotism for Portia to claim otherwise. Frankly, it is not Portia whom “no other horse in the race” can outpace; it should be the collective PNP. It was criminally ironic to hear the Comrade leader talk about democracy in the PNP in the same breath that she reminded her audience, “I am the leader of the PNP”.

What could have impelled Portia to issue such stern reminder of her leadership status? What should we expect Portia to tell the country today at the 77th Annual Conference of the PNP? Will she apologise for being indifferent to her true calling as a servant of the people? Will she speak meaningfully and in-depth about the untenable rise in crime and violence? Will she speak empathically about the economic hardships? Will she acknowledge that she has not been stepping up to the plate in terms of regular communication and engagement with the Jamaican people? Will she continue to blame the other party for the current state of affairs, or will she accept that elections have consequences? Will she lay the foundation and provide a vision of the Jamaica she wishes to bequeath? One thing’s for sure, she will not “fly the gate” or announce the election date.

Burnscg@aol.com