First things first: The People’s National Party (PNP) suffered a shocking defeat on February 25, 2016, because while the wolf kept knocking they all slumbered on. As already articulated in this space, the PNP miscalculated by going to the polls earlier than was necessary, but it fell asleep too soon thereafter. The PNP was not ready for a February election. Its organisation was not ready. The party did not establish the predicate on which to build a convincing message for continuity. There was widespread indifference among the people with regard to the “economic progress” because, for them, “Rain a fall but dutty tough; pot a boil but food nuh nuff”.

Most PNP candidates were not ready because the chasm between them and their constituents was perilously wide. There was serious estrangement between the PNP’s core supporters and the party-central. The party leader, Portia Simpson Miller, barricaded herself from the people and grew unresponsive to their views and desires to such an extent that the people saw the leadership as arrogant. There was no programme of outreach and there was no political education. The economic hardship weighed down heavily on the psyche of the people at large, so much so that many became distrustful of the promise that light is at the end of the tunnel.

If the PNP genuinely felt it could have won then, not only was the timing of the election a monumental show of poor judgement, the entire circumstances, prior to, and after the announcement of the general election, created an atmosphere of incoherence and confounding idiosyncrasies. It seemed confusing in the sense that the PNP appeared ill-equipped for an election that its own party leader went out of her way to call. The campaign felt unorthodox, in the sense that there was no obvious coordination between the message and the messengers. There was no correlation between the cause and the crusaders. There was no vision from the leader to the people. There was no inspiration on or from which the people could draw and, certainly, there was no conviction from the platform to persuade anyone that retaining the PNP would, at the very least, give them something tangible to look forward to and attain in the near or medium term.

Although there were countless episodes of fever-pitched excitement and fanaticism as Portia “rode ashore” on to the various platforms, the excitement was always short-lived, because the minute she took to the podium, she morphed into a dull, underwhelming, lethargic and boring speaker. She never once cracked a joke. And if she tried, it fell flat. She never once said anything memorable. She certainly lacked passion and energy during her stump speeches. Her performance throughout the campaign was underwhelming. The campaign was without direction, flavour or purpose. It was sloppy, and downright “chaka-chaka”.

The failure of the PNP to communicate, and to communicate regularly, turned out to be the albatross that choked it to near death in the just-concluded election. When, for example, I heard P J Patterson telling a news reporter at the launch of the PNP’s manifesto, a few days before the election, that “If the PNP takes it message effectively to the people, then it should do well come February 25…” I said to myself, “There is no way the PNP can win, because it has not been communicating to the people at all, and it will be impossible for it to communicate its message in any tangible way in such a short period of time.” Portia failed in her capacity as prime minister and party leader to use the bully pulpit to sell her Government’s programmes.

Yet, responsibility ought not to reside solely with the person(s) who incorrectly or precipitately advised the party leader about the readiness of the party’s machinery. It also rests with the party leader, because she is not a marionette. She is the leader, and as such the buck stops with her. She has been in politics for several decades. She claims to have studied at the political feet of both Michael Manley and the unbeatable P J Patterson. She should know that politics is all about timing. Given the foregoing, whosoever it was who inveigled, pre-empted or pressured Portia into going to the polls a full year before an election was constitutionally due must, as a matter of conscience, admit openly to the gross misreading of the political tea leaves and must be made to atone for the political malpractice inherent in that advice.

Portia operated as though she was the titular leader of government. She was totally “hands-off” and too timid to lead from the front or take decisive actions on a host of issues. She gave speeches to selected audiences, but never once gave a national broadcast in which she spoke candidly or ostensibly about the hardship that the economic reform programme was imposing on the people. Whilst Portia acknowledged the sacrifices and contributions of the people in several fora, she never once, as prime minister of Jamaica, made a national broadcast in which she focused entirely on motivating the people to endure or thanked them for making sacrifices. In other words, she and the PNP took the people for granted; believing that, by virtue of the fact that the PNP is an election machine, it can just roll into town as it has a mind to do.

Any political neophyte would have seen the glaring political asymmetries between what the PNP was claiming to be “progress” and the hardship people were experiencing. Therefore, another fatal flaw occurred when the PNP selected its slogan “Step-up the Progress”. Instead, the PNP should have asked voters to “Stand Firm”, then help and encourage them to believe and accept that the Government and party “know where they are going” — to borrow from one of its past slogans.

There is a particular call to action inherent in the “Stand Firm” slogan. It is a message, in and of itself; it is a message that entreats the people to be a little more patient, even as it beseeches them to be understanding, but simultaneously provides proof that Government is empathetic about the suffering they are experiencing. Such a slogan would make it easier for people to see the inevitability and inseparatability between suffering and struggling for individual progress and collective advancement.

Jamaicans are extremely individualistic. We care about our country, but we care more about ourselves and our personal economies. Therefore, when our personal circumstances are not better than the national circumstances, we retreat into our individual shells. We know that in Jamaica it is always about “me, me, me”. For, although some economic progress has been made, the gains have not filtered down to the average citizen by way of increased job opportunities, better roads, improved water supply, etc. Hence, by using the “Stand Firm” slogan, the PNP would have appealed to the better instinct, judgement and ideals of the people to hold strain because the fight is for a good cause — individually and collectively. The people were excited, but not in the mood, because they were not feeling enough of the progress to cause them to go out in their numbers to retain the PNP as Government.

In light of the election defeat, I expect the party president, the four vice-presidents and, soon thereafter, the secretariat to resign en bloc so the rebuilding of the party can commence in earnest and immediately. There should be no pussyfooting or vacillating, no posturing or spewing, and no stubbornness or delay. The business of the party and its plans for the country, whether immediate or in the medium term, require new vision, modern leadership, and comprehensive understanding of how the world works. “Duh, nuh mek duppy fool unnuh”; the PNP suffered a significant blow. Losing 11 seats is more than disconcerting, it is demoralising.

Consequent on the foregoing, Portia Simpson Miller should be the first to resign. As prime minister, Portia foolishly allowed her handlers to imprison her behind the walls of Jamaica House. She decidedly separated herself from the media and people of this country in the most unacceptable and reckless fashion. For the better part of her tenure as prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller gave the masses of this country, the people who loved and adored her, arms-length and cold-shoulder treatment. No wonder she and the PNP ‘got cold feet’ when it was time to debate. Never mind all the Anansy stories about Andrew disrespecting Portia, or questions about the long ago and fully adjudicated case of the Senate letters, the truth is that Portia and the PNP were ill-prepared and were trembling in their boots like when “guinea pig call”.

Dr Peter Phillips cannot become the new face of a reconstituted PNP. He cannot, and should not, offer himself to lead the party, certainly not with his foolishly ill-conceived insistence on making “a mountain out of a mole hill” with respect to the financing arrangements for Andrew Holness’s Beverly Hills house. In the end, he allowed idle fascination to impugn his own credibility. Secondly, as chief political provocateur, it was Peter Phillips who went out of his way to pre-empt the prime minister. He did so by putting the country on election alert. This is something Phillips had no business doing, since it is in the sole remit of the prime minister to call or not to call general elections. That he arrogated unto himself powers that were never vested in him should now cause him to account for his involvement in the party’s electoral demise.

The shake-up in the PNP goes beyond Portia and Peter. It involves the resignation of the entire second-tier leadership of the party. Implicit in this is an absolute requirement for the four current vice-presidents, party chairman, and deputy chairman, as well as the secretariat, to resign so the process of renewal can begin immediately. Peter Bunting, in my estimation, is the best choice to lead the party. Though having increased his margin of victory in the Manchester Central seat, if he is to become party leader he will definitely have to expand that margin comfortably, or move to a safer seat. Peter Bunting is the man I see standing next to Andrew “Champion Boy” Holness, to go “mano a mano”. The contrast between the two cannot be any more obvious and interesting. Bunting comes with political clout and marketability that compare favourably to the Champion Boy’s new-found political gravitas.

The second-tier leadership of the PNP, at the level of vice-president, should include names like Imani Duncan-Price, Lisa Hanna, Mark Golding, and Dayton Campbell; it would reflect a mix of energy, youth, and brilliance. Dr Peter Phillips would make a great party chairman, with Fitz Jackson as his deputy. The secretariat should reflect modernity. The PNP was found wanting in its utilisation of both social and traditional media. It also fell down on general communications. I feel the party’s secretariat would benefit immensely from Julian Robinson as general secretary, with support from Damion Crawford, Jennifer Edwards and Mark Golding. Phillip Paulwell should consider the position of party treasurer.

Burnscg@aol.com