The Jamaica Labour Party must be congratulated for winning the General Election. It won by a wafer-thin majority of 32 to 31. With this result the people sent two clear messages. To the JLP; you won, but you will not be allowed to do as you would like. To the People’s National Party; you almost did; next time spend more time listening to us.

Consequent on the victory of the JLP, every soul under the sun has been giving reasons as to why the PNP lost. It includes those who would not have voted, for the PNP under any condition, and those who have never voted, and have no intention of voting. That’s the nature of our democracy. All views must contend. My advice to all members of the PNP – especially its leadership, is to listen. Listen to all the ideas, all the views, and as the PNP ponders its future, try and pick sense out of nonsense.

With all the advice, analysis and discussions taking place, something in me says I must give more weight to the advice coming from persons in the streets; those who are in the battlefield of survival, those who know the worth of the PNP and want to see it return to the party of and for the people as quickly as possible.

One gentleman, who seems to be in his mid-60s, a car washer at a very busy valuation depot in the Corporate Area and who is very sad at the loss of the PNP, said to me: “A nuh di people dem dash weh the elections, yuh know, a unno”. When I enquired a bit more, he said: ‘We have the ting lock and because unno nuh listen to wi, unno mek a lot of people stay home and nuh vote.’ These words have stayed with me for days, particularly, ‘A nuh wi dash it weh — a unno.”

REDUCED VOTER TURNOUT

His point that people stayed away from the polls is true. On a national level voter turnout fell from 53% in 2011 to 47.5% in 2016 — an almost six per cent drop. For the first time in Jamaica’s history, voter turnout in a national elections fell below 50% — a serious indictment against our parliamentary democracy. This is not an issue only for the Government or for the Opposition, it is an issue for the entire Jamaica. Reduced voter turnout puts in question the legitimacy and authority of a duly elected government.

The reduction of voters from 53% last time, to 47.5% this time around meant that thousands of PNP supporters did not come out to vote. Every JLP voter had a reason to vote. They wanted their party to win. Many PNP supporters stayed home thinking their party would have won.

One supporter from Montego Bay called me to say, “Mi did expect us to lose a few seats, but mi neva expect us to lose power.” When I quizzed her, she said she did not vote as she could not bother to leave work because all the polls said PNP, ‘dun win already’. Taking things for granted is fatal in an election campaign.

REASONS FOR LOSING

Many reasons have been advanced by members of the public as to why the PNP lost the election. These include the offering by the JLP to remove PAYE from the salaries of those receiving $1.5 million and under, and the promise to double the minimum wage. The $18,000.00 payday offer by the JLP proved a significant incentive to many voters.

Other reasons advanced are the PNP focusing too much on ‘the house’; not participating in the debates; not staying on message and losing touch with our young people; showing insufficient understanding of the importance of social media in electioneering; the prolonged challenges associated with candidates selection in some constituencies; and losing the ‘ground game’ to the JLP on the day of election. All of these issues, and more, will have to be seriously looked at by the party as it appraises itself and readies itself for the next time.

The enormity of the challenge faced by the present JLP Government is manifested in some of the promises it made. One pensioner came to see me about a legal matter. Without prompting, she told me that she voted for the JLP. In stating why, she gave among her reasons the fact that she was looking forward to her $18,000.00 increase come April. I listened. I did not offer a response.

PNP’S LEADERSHIP

Some persons are calling for the head of Portia Simpson Miller. One front-page article in last Sunday’s

Gleaner, written by my good friend Arthur Hall, quoted every ghost he could find as he argued that the long knives were out for the four P’s: Portia, Peter, Paul and Phillip. Ghost because Mr Hall could not find one legitimate person, with a name, from the PNP to quote. He could only quote nameless ‘informed sources’.

No one person in the PNP is responsible for the election defeat. We all are. We entered together, campaigned together, and got defeated together. It is not an issue of ‘them versus us’ as some would want to make it out to be. We all share collective responsibility. Of course, there is individual accountability. This is where the party needs to be responsible, level-handed and show maturity in its assessment of how to treat with those persons.

Under the leadership of the founding president of the party, Norman Manley, the PNP lost elections in 1944, 1949, 1962 and 1967 — four times. The party was able to manage the transition of leadership from Norman Manley to Michael Manley in 1969 while maintaining party unity.

Under Michael Manley, the PNP lost the election in 1980 — 51 to 9. The party was almost wiped out. One of those who survived in 1980 as Member of Parliament was Portia Simpson Miller. The transition from Michael Manley to PJ Patterson was done on terms that did not seek to embarrass Mr Manley.

Under PJ Patterson, the PNP never lost an election. The party, despite two gruelling leadership internal elections, was able to manage the transition from PJ Patterson to Portia Simpson Miller while holding its organisational linkages together. The same principle and general understanding of the unity of purpose and maintaining the stability of the party should be applied when it is time for Portia to go. To do otherwise would be going against the culture of the party.

Yes, we lost the election under Portia Simpson Miller’s leadership. We lost by one seat. Probably if it were not for her we would have lost many more. I remember her going to constituency after constituency and preaching to Members of Parliament, particularly first time MPs, that, whatever the circumstances, they must stick with their people, they must show respect and shun arrogance, because come the day of election, the people may stay away from them. Of the PNP candidates who lost, eight were serving their first term. In four of the marginal seats, the PNP failed to get the turnout it did in 2011. If it did, it would have won those seats.

Changes must be made in the party as a result of the election results, but it must be orderly and timely. Changes must be made, but it must be for the benefit of the party, not at the expense of the party.

As the party makes the necessary adjustments, it must remember that Local Government elections may be held anytime soon. Also, that Prime Minister Holness may, sooner rather than later, based on how things unfold, consider it prudent to go back to the people in order to try and increase the JLP’s majority in Parliament.

Delano Franklyn is an attorney-at-law. He served as the PNP’s campaign spokesman during the party’s last general election campaign.