The People’s National Party (PNP) must get beyond petulance if it expects to be taken seriously by the people of Jamaica. At the last sitting of Parliament before the Christmas holidays the PNP members considered it effective strategy to walk out in protest against the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) alleged refusal to give a report on the spending of $600 million on a nationwide de-bushing programme. They felt that they were being ignored in the matter and believed that the best approach was to vote with their feet.

Never mind that Prime Minister Andrew Holness later gave a report on the project — a report he seemed to have been prepared beforehand to give. If the PNP had waited they would have heard it.

Phillip Paulwell, leader of the Opposition business in the House, believes that he delayed the report so that he would not have to face questioning from the Opposition. Really, Paulwell?! Did the Government members know beforehand that your members would have walked out of Parliament? Did your members plan this walkout beforehand because you were already peeved at losing the election which the party blamed on being significantly excluded from the ‘fat’ de-bushing project?

On another matter, and perhaps on the same trajectory of the petulance demonstrated in the parliamentary walkout, the party decided not to attend the signing ceremony for the new social partnership agreement between the Government and various stakeholders in the country. The explanation that was given by the outgoing party president, Portia Simpson Miller, is that, by correspondence with the prime minister, she had earlier objected to the change of name from “partnership for Jamaica” to “partnership for a prosperous Jamaica”. What unnerved the leader of the Opposition was the use of the word “prosperous” in defining the new initiative.

The Government was accused of playing politics since prosperity was a pivotal plank in the JLP’s campaign in the last general election. Any Jamaican seriously concerned about the future of the country could not help but being aghast at this level of petulance to matters of serious national importance. Paul Scott, head of the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica, is understandably amazed at this level of petulance over so simple a matter. So should other well-thinking Jamaicans.

The PNP need not be reminded, although it grates against their nerves when they are, that the JLP is now Government. They campaigned on a theme of prosperity for Jamaica, and since then have sought to organise the business of government to reflect their philosophical thinking of what they believe is best to take the country forward. It is well within their remit to choose a moniker or symbolism that they believe to be in tandem with their overall philosophy of governance. If future circumstances prove them to be wrong in their philosophical insistence, then let history be the judge. But how silly can one get in politicising the word prosperity simply because it was a plank in a party’s thrust for power in any election? How bereft of common sense can one be to insist that you cannot attend a ceremony, because inserting the word prosperous on a programme of national importance derogates from sound judgement and good sense as a political slogan?

The truth the PNP is trying to hide is that they are still smarting from their loss of the parish council elections and from what they believe to be the misuse of the $600-million de-bushing programme. Their objection to the use of the word “prosperous” in the partnership programme has no deep moral underpinning and is, in fact, a convenient smokescreen to hide their intention not to participate in the ceremony. It sets the stage for their purported non-cooperation with the Government. It is all an indication of peeve after having lost the municipal elections. This is regrettable and the PNP ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The PNP has gone so far down the road of petulance that one wonders how serious they are at rejuvenating themselves and giving Jamaicans a viable opposition that has credibility. It is within their remit to continue taking courses in the “University of the Stupid”, but Jamaica cannot entertain the luxury of their elevating petulance to a tool of political strategy. They need to understand that Jamaicans are watching and outside of their dedicated lumpen, they are not impressed with the shenanigans and posturing in which they are presently indulging. They are playing to an empty arena if they believe that sensible and responsible Jamaicans appreciate their latest attempts at comedy.

As they engage each other and the country in their soon to commence campaign to replace the outgoing president of their party, the PNP must settle down. First they must deal with the serious matter of healing and uniting the disgruntled elements in the party. They feign unity but they know that closest to the truth is the fact that there is yet a great deal of work to be done to bring the party together around a common philosophy.

And they must be careful in identifying what that core philosophy ought to be. People like Julian Robinson and others given to a more intellectual appreciation of what is happening in the world must be mindful that the old ideological paradigms that sharply divided people are no longer relevant to how people seek to live their lives. The great divide between socialism and capitalism is no longer sustainable. There now seems to be a gradual shift towards what I would call a radical pragmatism which speaks to getting things done without the overlay of any “ism”.

Is the PNP today seized of this shifting mood in the world and Jamaica? What shape or new direction, if any, will its rejuvenated thinking embrace? Or will it be business as usual? If it is the latter they will indeed need divine intervention for they will be insulting the intelligence of the Jamaican people and will be destined to remain in the political wilderness. They would do well to take a keener look at the emerging pragmatism of an emboldened and newly courageous Andrew Holness. One would admit that they would only do so grudgingly and not openly, but the bottom line is that they have a lot of work to do. They must eschew petulance and begin to get the work done.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest and social commentator. Send comments to the Observer orstead6655@aol.com.