Completely angered and disappointed by my unrelenting bombardment of logical criticisms against the People’s National Party (PNP), a friend journeyed to Highgate, St Mary, to verify my political bona fides and political past as a Comrade, only to be told, “Yuh see dah yute deh, ‘im and him family ah more PNP than Michael Manley ever was…” he relayed. I do not know of, neither can I claim any such absolute declaration of political consecration or “die-hearted” affiliation.

Another friend recently declared, though jokingly, “Burns, with this article, you are bound to lose your membership in the PNP…” Alas, the last time I checked, I continue to owe several years of outstanding membership dues. And while I am eager and able to pay the outstanding dues — plus some — I am equally unwilling to use good money to chase bad goods.

However, by way of historical context, I could not have been more than seven years old when my dad took me to what I believe was my first “group meeting”. It was hosted by the Highgate Fairlight Group, under the chairmanship of Leopold “Sleepy” Gray and the Uriel “Spud” Robertson. My very first assignment that Monday evening was to read aloud for group members a Jamaica Star news story with the headline ‘Comrade kills cop’. To this day I remember how the headline infuriated Sleepy Gray and Spud, who declared it to be “a filthy piece of political journalistic misinformation…”

Their visible indignation and sweet-sounding condemnation is forever etched in my memory. They described the headlines something along the lines of being a “maliciously dangerous banner”. They excoriated The Gleaner Company for allowing that headline to appear on the front pages of the Star. They said it was the newspaper’s way to deceive John Public into believing that the killing was politically motivated and carried out by a Comrade (PNP), when it was, in fact, done by a colleague policeman, or ‘comrade’ as they called one another in the police force during those days.

The truth is, today’s version of the PNP is a shadow of the PNP I saw my father passionately support and earnestly defend. Asked in 1938 about the importance of the name “PNP”, then leader, Norman Manley, said, “Our party is called the PNP because it will unswervingly aim at all those measures…which will raise the standard of living and security of the masses of the people…It is perfectly true that the interests of all classes of people are bound together, but it is equally true that there is a common mass in this country whose interests must predominate above and beyond all other classes…”

I do not love the PNP any less than I did when I was way too young to attend the 1980 political mass meeting in Sam Sharpe Square with my dad. I just happen to love Jamaica more. No amount of political affiliation can quench my abhorrence of foolishness, intolerance for intellectual biliousness, and aversion to contemptuous hypocrisy. Unfortunately, I see too much of those jarring foulness in this ‘contemporary’ version of the PNP to remain silent, or pretend they do not exist. I cannot, and will not, under any circumstances support any of it.

Paradoxically, as honesty demands, those disappointments notwithstanding, I remain consistent in my belief, though less unhesitatingly, that the PNP — by virtue of its original design, policies, aims, and objectives — is best suited to improve overall living conditions for the majority of the Jamaican people. That declarative statement is separate and apart from my unflinching obligation to remain loyal to the truth. It is the truth that will set us free.

Decades later, and at the invitation of Anthony Hylton and Peter Bunting, I joined the PNP circa 2006. It is an open secret that I’ve contributed financially and otherwise to the party, in particular to the development of the “Progressive Agenda”. Subsequent to that, the untiringly positive and persuasive Delano Franklyn, who I continue to venerate, recommended that I work with economist Dennis Morrison to develop a workable, adequately funded “Diaspora Policy” for inclusion in the PNP’s 2016 Manifesto; I happily contributed.

We live in a political culture in which crudity is admired and civility is equally dismissed as a supinely amoeba-like quality. The man, or woman, with the biggest megaphone and the loudest voice commands respect, even if his or her utterances are divisive, barren, and condescending. Once his or her language reflects the triteness of today’s lingua franca, or body language matches up to the latest moves, there goes an automatic winner.

A concomitant feature of this is that politics is about contrast. Therefore, voters make comparisons and many will vote on the basis of their perception of how “good” Prime Minister Andrew Holness looks versus Dr Peter Phillips. They will even vote for the man who can slip in and out of the latest dance moves — they identify with fad. Objectively, and fundamentally, nothing is wrong with admiring personalities, mental agility, or physical fitness, especially when relatability is indispensable to one’s choice, if even superficial. Political parties are in the business of marketing ideas as much as they market personalities, and they do so conscious of the need to canvass, convince, and convert potential voters into supporters. And because politics is an active people-sport, political organisations select the best “baits” to catch a school of fish.

Nowhere has that been more evident than on the Jamaican political scene, starting with the eloquent Marcus Garvey’s 1929 People’s Political Party (PPP); Norman Manley [a co-founder] of the PNP in 1938, Alexander Bustamante Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) in 1943; and all others who followed them, including our current Prime Minister Andrew “Brogad” Holness. It should surprise no one when supporters get antsy about the leader, or express concerns about the leadership of their party; both are legitimate human reactions to the fear of missing out, as well as the desire to retain that which they feel most comfortable with — socially, emotionally, politically, culturally economically, and, yes, opportunistically.

Like many other political organisations, the PNP has gone through leadership changes. Father Manley passed the baton to his son, Michael “Joshua” Manley, in 1969. Michael transitioned leadership to P J Patterson in 1992. Patterson handed over the reins of the party to Portia Simpson Miller in 2006. And, eventually, Portia handed it to Dr Peter Phillips in 2017. In all those circumstances, and despite the fierce rivalry and “cass-cass”, the will of the party’s delegates was recognised as sacrosanct. The outcomes respected as final. Though organisational peace reigned, none of that meant “cancellation of leadership ambitions” — absolutely not; specifically so for organisations, such as the PNP, that classify themselves as progressive and democratic.

It was on the basis of those very claims that Vivian Blake, a prominent lawyer, unsuccessfully challenged Michael Manley for the leadership of the party in 1969. It was on that same basis of progressivism and democracy that Portia Simpson (before the Miller) unsuccessfully challenged P J Patterson in 1992, but she was rewarded by party delegates in 2006, and again in 2008. Portia’s second attempt to become PNP president saw her going up against Drs Peter Phillips, Omar Davies, and Karl Blythe. That 2006 contest was a million times fiercer than the 1992 race. The 2006 race was not without powerful “bows and arrows”. A lot of nasty things were repeatedly said about Portia’s intellectual acuity and leadership skills — mostly by members of Dr Phillips’s campaign team. Those tempers did not fade.

Dr Phillips, despite being included in Portia’s Cabinet, launched another unsuccessful presidential campaign in 2008. The vitriol of the 2006 campaign was chicken feed compared to the unrelenting episodes of pernicious, barbaric, ad hominem, laced with insalubrious invectives that I still believe impacted negatively on her mental and emotional sobriety.

And, who was the “Sheriff”, the “Cowboy”, and owner of that house from whence the hurtful rhetoric came? Who was it that travelled to every nook and cranny of the country with a show of political constipation, but slick condescension toward the incumbent leader, reminding people “…If the person is popular and cannot hold the party together, the party is going to lose…” The division in the party affirmed his intuitive prescience, but some people would call it “goat mouth”.

After two failed attempts to unseat her, and following the announcement from Portia that she would not seek re-election as PNP president, Dr Phillips, at 67 years old, assumed the post of president of the PNP on Sunday, March 26, 2017. He was unopposed — a one man walk to the throne. Peter was sworn in as leader of the Opposition on April 2, 2017. At the time of Phillips’ coronation, PNP General Secretary Julian Robinson remarked, inter alia: “…Comrades feel now is a time to unite. There are significant challenges facing the country. They feel that a united PNP will be a strong Opposition and can challenge the Government in areas that are necessary to ensure that the poor are protected and that the gains made over the four year [2012-2016] period are not squandered under political expedience…”

When pressed about Phillips’s electability and likeability, the diffident general secretary continued, “…The reality is that there was ‘somewhat of a consensus’ [my emphasis] in the party that Dr Phillips is the best person at ‘this time’ [my emphasis]… I think age is a number. People bring different things to the party; he has a lot of experience. He leads a team…and I don’t doubt that he has the energy…he leads that team…a strong, united PNP can’t be beaten…”

The passiveness of Julian’s statement remains dangerously satirical to this day. To him, it was ‘somewhat of a consensus’ that Dr Phillips is the best person at ‘this time…’ It would be reasonable to infer from that statement that the ‘consensus’ is only to some extent or to a certain degree, but not unanimous that Dr Phillips is the best person at this time. Julian’s “at this time” remarks convey temporariness. Yet, party elders cried foul in 2019, and were mad as hell at Peter Bunting for entertaining the idea of challenging Phillips, let alone following through on it. Bunting’s challenge was unsuccessful. Significantly, though, the incumbent received 1,427 votes to Bunting’s 1,351 — a difference of only 76 votes; fostering in an era of division.

The strong, united Phillips-led PNP that Julian claimed “can’t be beaten” suffered the following by-election defeats: Portland Eastern, St Andrew North Western, St Mary South Eastern, and more recently Clarendon South Eastern — even though the party did not contest that by-election. The PNP retained the St Andrew Southern and South Western constituencies. Since then, the PNP has been seriously limping along. It has not gained traction from the multitude of corruption revelations that have been bedevilling the Holness Administration; and although violent crimes, especially murders, remain unabated, the PNP appears way off the political radar. It has no coordinated message, the messenger is not well-liked, and there appears to be a free for all while the party clings to its socialist ideological past, despite Norman Manley’s warning about rigid dogmas.

For whilst is declared itself to democratic socialism from as far back as in the early 1940s, its commitment is to engendering an egalitarian society; one built with equality and social justice as part of its democratic socialist identity. As far as I am concerned, the PNP did not commit to a rigid political doctrine from which it would never depart. In fact, it was Norman Washington Manley, himself, who said, “Socialism is not a rigid dogma. It is not embodied in any finally revealed biblical text. It is essentially a principle of social organisation which has to be applied to the particular place where you are trying to apply it, because it must depend on the particular conditions which obtain from time to time in that place…”

Now, the latest in the series of tragi-comedies features the infamous ‘Gang of 15’ and the letter they wrote to Phillips requesting a meeting to discuss party business. Mi rahtid! Under normal circumstances nothing would be wrong with such request to meet with the “boss”, except nothing is normal nowadays in the PNP. It appears everything in the PNP has subliminally surreptitious motives, with strict focus on undermining Phillips.

So, what the hell is happening inside the PNP? For the Sheriff, of Cowboy fame, to describe the behaviour of the Gang of 15 as “scandalous and antiparty”; worst yet, for him to trade in bizarre declarations about “It’s folly to have wannabes… with has-beens and treacherous idolaters defeat the bold and committed…” things have hit a low. Those remarks, K D, are unnecessary, and utterly nonsensical.

The real scandal lies in the party’s inability to use digital technology such as Zoom to connect.

And, to the writer of the jackass-type letter that uncharitably describes Portia’s mental health, hath you no shame, Sir?

Christopher Burns is CFO and vice-president of finance for a multinational. Send your comments to the Jamaica Observer or burnscg@aol.com.