President of the People’s National Party (PNP) Portia Simpson Miller continues to show a boat-load of political chutzpah. By her own insistence, that while “I am not here to stay forever, I am not ready to go…” Portia is not only systematically and deliberately cementing her own feelings of indispensability and invincibility, but she is also using stubbornness as the political missile of choice against (and to spite) anyone who dares to challenge her for the leadership of the near 78-year-old party.

It is clear, Portia hates direct confrontation. She does not have the fortitude, nor does she possess the political skills necessary to argue the value-added for her remaining in that post, except to rely on her own conceited, melogamaniacal and pious self-approbation that “…nobody cyaan draw the kind a crowd that Portia can draw…So it is not about Portia…it is about the people…” Forget her abuse of third person reference, her point is nothing more than pure codswallop!

Apparently, the “tens and tens of thousands” who gathered in Half-Way-Tree Square to hear her announce the election date in February were not enough to prevent the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) from siphoning off 11 seats from her “draw crowd” PNP.

There is so much contemptuousness in these remarks that it would make filling the Mona Reservoir appear easier than a walk across Mandela Park. Portia knows that crowds do not win elections. She knows well that political parties mobilise crowds and, in many instances, pay people to attend political rallies, so for her to pretend otherwise, and then stake her claim for leadership on the flimsy notion that “…nobody cyaan draw the kind a crowd that Portia can draw…” is simply unfathomable.

Portia prefers avoidance as the tool to prevent a direct challenge to her leadership, especially in the aftermath of the recent electoral defeat. The truth is, as ‘bad’ and as bold as she appears, Portia is secretly petrified of losing that which democracy does not and cannot guarantee — permanent or ultimate power.

Portia loves politics. She likes elections. Politics is about all she knows and she cannot imagine a future outside of politics — plain and simple. I am beginning to sense, too, that she prefers political power as much as the excitement of politics. The power gives her an extra burst of adrenaline. Unfortunately, however, the “rush” causes her to morph into odd complacency, which comports well with her affinity for procrastination and prevarication.

While those personal inclinations are “well and good” for Simpson Miller, and may please adherents in her special clique, her penchant for deflecting serious issues to the backwaters does not always fit with the expectations of the wider cohort of electors with whom ultimate power resides. Put simply, party delegates alone cannot win general elections. If she cannot appeal to the wider electorate, then she will not win national elections and sit in Jamaica House.

We have seen this many times over with the illustrious Edward Seaga, who, with the exception of 1980 General Election victory, remained largely at odds with the general electorate.

It is not strange in our democracy, as is in other democracies, for electors to buy the message, but reject the messenger for a host of reasons. In circumstances like these, a party of ideas could find itself permanently housed in the Opposition benches and unable to effect changes.

This column was first out of the blocks to suggest “Portia should be first to go…” It did so fully cognisant of the enormous responsibility that comes with leadership, but also on the premise that leadership ought to accept that “the buck stops with” them. Responsible leadership takes this seriously and, as part of the evaluation process, responsible leadership usually make way for fresh thinking and new faces. Leadership does this on the assumption that, whilst collective responsibility is paramount, as leaders they must regard defeat as rejection, however narrow an election loss might appear.

Rejection masked in any garment is still “rejection”. Therefore, no amount of scapegoating or pussyfooting can hide the hard, cold truths.

Like ideas, democracy is ugly and hard to manage. Democracy does not guarantee outcomes that everyone will find satisfying or acceptable. And, if there were any doubts, the recent Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, as well as the February 25 General Election in Jamaica, should remove all of them.

One and the same

Democracy is not about predictable outcomes, in terms of winners and losers. As such, those presumptuous enough to see themselves as heir-apparent (winners) had better prepare themselves for possible defeat as well.

Undoubtedly, winning is great, but defeat carries with it opportunities for the vanquished to modify, reposition themselves, and recalibrate their programmes and platforms sufficiently to appeal and attract voters. Political parties do not grow if party faithful remain their sole interest or focus. Herein lies the opportunity for the PNP and its future leader.

I continue to believe that Portia Simpson Miller should accept responsibility for the February 25, 2016 defeat of the PNP and resign as president. It would then be up to the party to accept or to reject her resignation. Her failure to resign, I seriously hope, is not because Portia does not believe she contributed to the PNP’s defeat, but because she is terrified that the party may just vote to accept her resignation.

There is an element of inseparability between the organisation and its leader that a wise leader should never deny. Therefore, if a leader becomes the face of an organisation, when he or she leads a political party into an election and electors vote to reject both party and idea, the leader must accept the verdict as personal and organisational repudiation — period. This is even worse when the leader ties his or her personal brand and reputation to the outcome — as Portia is wont to do.

Remember the 2007 mantra, “A vote for Portia is a vote for the PNP, and a vote for the PNP is a vote for Portia…”? Well, the PNP lost the 2007 General Election, but what did Portia do in the aftermath of that defeat? Portia immediately disbanded her own poppycock, self-adulating drivel about “a vote for Portia is a vote for the PNP, and a vote for the PNP is a vote for Portia…” She continued as party leader.

In fairness to her, she defended her stewardship of the party and was victorious in defeating Dr Peter Philips for the presidency. That victory, however, did not change Portia’s views on leadership. If anything, it emboldened her to offer the party her own understanding and style of leadership, however challenging and eccentric.

Then, the Dudus Manatt fiasco and the global recession presented the perfect political storm for the JLP and its leadership; Bruce Golding and then Andrew Holness. However, by dint of sheer chance, luck, and hard work, the PNP — and under Portia’s leadership, but with tremendous help from K D Knight et al — rode the political pony home to victory in 2011. The 2011 election produced an outcome that was advantageous to the PNP and Portia reclaimed her position as prime minister.

Not a terrible PM, but…

I disagree staunchly with her critics when they say she (Portia) was a “terrible” prime minister. For, while I will not recite the many economic and social advances that took place during her tenure, I am prepared to say, without fear of contradiction, Portia Simpson Miller led a largely successful Government between January 2012 and February 2016. The PNP government was no “wrecking ball and chain” as some political nitwits would have us believe. Yes, there were many areas of deficiency — areas such as communications, misprioritisation of government resources — but, overall, her Government produced and left a sound enough foundation for the current JLP Administration to build on. Argument done!

However, on the political side of the ledger, and with specific reference to the political organisation (PNP), I do not feel Portia exhibited political skills, exercised leadership, or made her imprimatur on the party. I feel the outcome of the February election was reflective, among other things, of an organisation and election apparatus being led by a leader who was obviously ineffective, out of touch, out of control, passive, marginalised, selective, estranged, and highly narcissistic. The leader must, at all times, be in control of and knowledgeable about the organisation and the team he or she leads. A political leader, in particular, must understand the symbiosis between the consequences of inaction and aloofness and the choices he or she is presenting to the electorate to make.

Consequently, those who loathe the consequences of choice need not pretend to like democracy; instead, they should abide by, and stay true to the strictures of dictatorship for therein lie their true delight. Leaders cannot change the rule of the games midstream when success proves elusive or when dreams do not come true, since to do would neither be right nor reasonable.

“Holding fast” to the position of leadership out of “foolish invincibility” or misplaced feelings of indispensability is akin to political malpractice. Arguing, as Portia seems to be doing, that “…my work in and with the party is well known…” may win sympathies, but it is substantially inadequate to justify her continued leadership of the party, worse that she has not done one thing during her 10-year presidency to rebrand the party or to make it more appealing to those, like myself, who happen to admire and support the original aims and objectives of the party.

As currently constituted, I could not feel at home in the PNP.

It is true, Simpson Miller’s continued presence, as party president, does not, in or of itself, hinder internal party democracy, nor does her presence prevent other viable or even non-viable candidates, for that matter, from challenging her for the presidency. However, her insistence and near-threatening reminder of her past role in the party could stymie legitimate efforts to reform the party and make it appealing to individuals who love the party and want to contribute at the highest level. We cannot talk prosperity but plant pimples along the pathway to prosperity. As Portia herself asserted recently, and drawing on Ecclesiastes 3:1, “There is a time for everything, and a season for every activity under the heavens…”

Orderly transitions are crucial to organisational success. As such, I do not support any untidy or mutinous actions against the party leader. However, I feel ‘time come’ for a changing of the guard. It matters little whether the PNP selects a man or a woman, someone younger or older, so long as it selects someone other than Portia to lead the party.

I happen to love Portia no less, I just happen to love Jamaica more. We need a prime minister of the future. By this I mean someone to make the pivot from 1938 Jamaica to a 21st century Jamaica, and not just in terms of modern buildings or physical infrastructure, but in terms of thinking and planning. There is nothing to prevent the PNP from selecting someone to lead that charge.

The PNP, between 1993 and 2016, placed enormous energy and resources in building its election machinery — fair game. It did so largely on the premise that change can best be effected through “winning State power” — again, fair game. However, it appears the party’s focus on elections robbed it of the opportunity to recast its true purpose within the construct of an evolving world and within the context of an ever-changing economic environment. In other words, the PNP slowly lost its soul. Say what you may about Portia, she realised this early enough and frequently spoke about “balancing people’s lives while balancing the books”.

The unfortunate reality, though, is that both Portia and the PNP ended up cannibalising that message and did so without articulating an alternative — there are similarities between politics and the game of chess. The PNP’s inability to articulate a new political order, insofar as the Jamaican society, social and political experiences are concerned, rests with the party’s heavy focus on election outcomes but at the expense of people-centric politics.

I am sure the PNP will reject my assertion — fair game — but the party just needs to ask its own membership to adjudicate on the correctness, or lack thereof, of my claim. The outcome would certainly shock the party into swift action sufficiently for the party to retire the foolishness about Portia’s magnetism; because political parties are bigger than their leaders and Portia already knows.

Burnscg@aol.com