No doubt, Prime Minister Andrew Holness already knows that one of the punitive consequences of an election is that “one sows and another reaps”. Hence, elections have consequences — as much so for the victors as for the vanquished.

As custodians of governmental power, the victors must not squander public goodwill or betray the trust the people repose in them. They must be forthright and purposeful in managing the affairs of the country. It is not always easy to tell the people what they do not want to hear — as Holness did in 2011 about bitter medicine — even though not telling them could also be costly.

Jamaicans are naturally forgiving and forgetful even; but forgiveness can bear close resemblance to punishment — just look about us, the signs are as perennial as grass. We have become a very impatient people, driven in part by long-standing disappointments, disillusionment, cynicism, and a chronic misappreciation of our significant socio-cultural and economic achievements. It is against this background that I encourage Prime Minister Andrew Holness to use the opportunity to “Adjust-in-Action” and to start by lowering expectations. The sooner he moves to the centre, the better it will be for Jamaica and his political longevity.

Political leadership requires adjustments-in-action. Promises made during election campaigns may be too costly and burdensome to implement. I think it was prime minister, the late Michael Manley who said: “When you are out of power you can say anything; when you get power, it is a different sankey you have to sing.” For, while unpopular decisions and pullbacks may yield short disapproval, the long-term benefits of non-implementation could prove significant and far more beneficial individually, as well as for the country as a whole.

It is not entirely the sole remit of the conquerors to strive for Jamaica’s betterment; the political opposition has a responsibility to avoid the politics of sabotage and to resist, at every turn, the allurement of becoming in Opposition that which it abhorred in government — a party that lives by an “oppose-oppose-oppose” mantra and then justify its antagonistic way by invoking the Westminster Model as the Edward Seaga-led Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) did during most of its years in Opposition.

As wardens of our democracy, the vanquished must remain vigilant in their advocacy on behalf of the minority. They must also pursue collaborative opportunities, wherever they exist, and advance true bipartisanship.

Bipartisanship, in this sense, does not mean photo civility, politeness or agreeableness within the confines of Gordon House — the nation’s seat of political power. It means working together in the interest of Jamaica and for “the greater good” of all Jamaicans.

That aside, we could not have arrived at a more fortuitous time, politically, than when veteran politician, now Speaker of the House of Representatives, Pearnel Charles, spoke candidly about our political culture of “entitlement” and “dependency” and the connections to slavery.

In an interview with the Jamaica Observer‘s Editor-at-Large H G Helps, Pearnel Charles said, inter alia: “We have tried everything [else]. We have tried ‘Better Must Come’ (People’s National Party’s [PNP’s] campaign slogan for the 1972 General Election) and it hasn’t come. We have tried ‘Deliverance’ (JLP’s campaign theme for the 1980 General Election) and it hasn’t delivered…”

Pearnel did not stop there. He carried on with his sage advice and observations: “If we can’t come together with certain decisions, it is better we move out. The PNP is trying to do the right thing, the wrong way — giving the international Monetary Fund (IMF) everything. When Norman Manley came with an education programme, Busta said, ‘You going to put everything in education? Education cyaan nyam; if dem hungry, them cyaan learn’.” He continued, “Busta came out by saying, ‘Give me some education and give them some zinc and some plyboard. It will take us longer to reach there, but we will reach…’ ” Indeed, hungry children cannot concentrate as well as those who are adequately fed, but many have lived to tell the misadventure inherent in Bustamante’s false choice with respect to the value of a sound education.

On the issue of bipartisanship and collaboration, Pearnel is correct. However, he is “wide of the mark” when it comes on to the broader issues of entitlement and debt repayment. Never mind that the observations came directly from the horse’s mouth. Pearnel laid bare certain inconvenient truths about our short-term focus and penchant for instant gratification. If we are to advance as a people, we must come to grips with the reality in which we live and start believing more in ourselves and in our own capacities, and less in the Government to be our be-all and end-all — to be our preacher, teacher, baker, barber, obeahman, butcher, concubine, and lover.

It is the same proclivity for instant gratification and entitlement politics that is causing many Jamaicans to believe that they will be receiving a monthly cheque for $18,000 ($216,000 per annum) from the Jamaican State as part of the impending income tax relief programme. It is the same caravan of unrealistic expectations that is causing so many to hop onto the bandwagon of belief that this JLP Administration is going to create 250,000 jobs, move the National Minimum Wage to US$5,000 (approximately $610,000) annually, remove the user fees in hospitals, abolish the auxiliary fees in secondary schools, all in one fell swoop, and before the end of its first term in 2021.

Elections have consequences and Prime Minister Holness seriously needs to move with great alacrity to temper expectations — the earlier the better. I know he has political calculations to make, given the imminent parochial elections, but it will not be long before the people start realising that governments do not create jobs — not without having to adjust other spending priorities. They will soon accept that it is the private sector that creates jobs and that governments only facilitate job creation and job growth; but not before turning against you faster than “how green lizards turn grey”, and quicker than “how mongoose run at the sight of night owls”.

Back to the illustrious Pearnel Charles and his observations. Pearnel, no lender, domestic or foreign, is likely to lend us money without insisting on their pound of flesh. It is just how the world works. It is for reasons like these that risk-mitigation mechanisms, such as those imposed by the IMF with respect to Jamaica’s long history of indebtedness and low growth, are prominent features in negotiating with multilaterals and multinational lending agencies. Consequently, the assertion about Jamaica “giving the IMF everything” — though radically and politically appealing — is a non sequitur. However, Pearnel is spot on, sensibly so, in calling for balance. He is correct; greater equity is needed between what the governors are exacting and what struggling economies, such as ours, are able to accommodate without cutting off the nose to spite the face. In other words, we should avoid extremes that could cause more harm than good.

Nevertheless, like it or not, we have to satisfy our debt obligations within the agreed terms. Therefore, whilst it is easy to understand Pearnel’s a posteriori assessment of things, it would be imprudent to accept his implied assertion that recalibration of the Jamaican economy (to where the government lives within its means) is akin to “giving the IMF everything”.

Repaying creditors is dissimilar from “giving” them everything. Creditors like discernible equidistance between risks and opportunities, hence their insistence on repayment terms they can use to hedge against lending risks. One of the risk mechanisms is the “economic rent” levied on loans; another is the preference for collateralised loans, as this diminishes exposure in the likelihood of a default.

Elections have consequences, and those who are entrusted with power must demonstrate the ability to distinguish between the possession of power and the application of the authority that comes with the power they hold. Although “power” and “authority” are often viewed as synonyms, there are differences between the two.

On the one hand, “power” is necessary for influencing change, actions or outcomes; good or bad. Authority, on the other hand, is vital as it speaks to the ability to get things done through others. It includes making decisions, delegating, and, through proper application, evoking responsiveness and obedience from others. Therefore, leadership devoid of power or authority is not real leadership because there would be nothing fearful, egotistic, commanding, or authoritative about it.

There are some tough choices ahead for the prime minister that will require a combination of power and authority. Some of the choices will require massive scaling back of some of the election promises made during the recent election. There are the lingering issues with public sector pension reforms; the long-term viability and solvency of the National Insurance Scheme, and the review of the retirement age. There are issues concerning public sector modernisation and the wage bill, as a percentage of gross domestic product; and restructuring the extractive economic model on which the Jamaican society has relied for too long. Climate change and disaster-mitigation financing, crime and violence, crumbling infrastructure, the national debt, and low productivity are among the many challenges that face the Government. Exerting power and authority will be key in prioritising the issues.

No one in his or her right mind should expect the prime minister or his Government to fix everything all at once, however easy he makes it sound. It is simply undo-able. Undoubtedly, he will have to use the power of the prime ministership to influence changes that will, in effect, help to reorder budgetary priorities.

In exercise of that power, he will not only have to face the classic Casualty Dilemma — he will have to decide which came first, the chicken or the egg? The decisions he or his Government makes will come with consequences, some with unintended positive results, others with unintended negative outcomes, but consequences nonetheless.

Additionally, there are going to be choices and decisions that will present the perfect “Tar Baby” dilemma for the Government. In other words, anywhere it turns “macca ah go jook”. Yet, it has to turn; it must turn; such is the nature of governance.

Let me be clear, nothing in this space is intended to create reasons for a cause célèbre in anticipation of failure or out of political malevolence. However, as was the case in 2012, when Portia Simpson Miller took the oath of office as prime minister, this column deems it necessary to highlight some of the challenges that await the country, even as some political operatives choose to live on “cloud nine” and in denial.

Ad interim, let us heed Pearnel Charles’ observations about the unfulfilled promises of Michael Manley’s “Better Must Come”, and of Edward Seaga’s “Deliverance”.

Burnscg@aol.com