Political parties are free to execute and manoeuvre their internal stratagems, tactics, and political strategies as they see fit, however confusing things may appear to the average outsider. That autonomy does not absolve them from public scrutiny, criticism, or disapproval.

Without idle equivocation, political parties that are serious about assuming State power must give voters hope and reasons to vote for them as much as to cause them to vote against the opponent. In our adversarial democracy, it is within the rights of the People’s National Party (PNP) to become inebriated by its self-imposed fixation on being purely descriptive in its approach to wrestle State power from the current Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) if it feels it has the upper hand.

That approach lacks political sagacity and is chock-full of contempt, because voters want to hear more about the party’s prescriptions so they can ventilate their concerns one way or another. Put simply, it will not be long before people start asking: What is in the PNP’s plans for me, my family, and my community?

The shorter the window of opportunity to respond to voter questions, the greater the propensity for scepticism to flourish.

Except for spokespersons such as Dr Dayton Campbell, Phillip Paulwell, Damion Crawford, Anthony Hylton, Dr Alfred Dawes, Dr Andre Haughton, and the occasional crime statistician Peter Bunting, there has not been any consistent or cogent articulation of any of its major policy objectives and how it intends to implement them. Nobody in their right mind would expect the PNP to present verse, chapter, and book with copious minutiae on everything, but there is a way to speak about policy objectives without jumping off into the deep blue sea of unnecessary details.

Instead of applying surgical scoping out of certain sections of its broader policy goals so it can share it with John Public in bites sizes, the PNP seems ready to abdicate its role to educate the citizens about its substantive plans for Jamaica. In a bizarre twist of political idleness, the party has made clear it will not release details around major policy objectives until after Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness announces the date for the next general election.

While it is quite possible, even very probable for the PNP to prevail in the next election, it will not be a cakewalk, as Mark Golding has been saying. Prime Minister Dr Andrew “Brogad” Holness is mindful that public sentiments have shifted away from him and the JLP, even as he remains relatively popular. The PNP’s leadership seems oblivious to the fact that it faces a political opponent in Dr Holness that operates under a closeted version of political modernism. His is the type that appeals not only to Millennials, Generation-Zers, Generation-Xers, but also to tech-savvy Baby Boomers — all creatures of the ‘microwave’ revolution and ‘now’ culture.

What is the relevance of that in today’s zeitgeist? Well, surprise, surprise, the more things change the more they remain the same. Brogad no longer has the shine he once had. But, as he once said, “Governance cannot exclude [the] politics of governance…” Accordingly, he knows how, and when, to activate his political levers. The evidence is glaring.

Holness is everywhere handing out a house here and a house there. He is up late at night reviewing and directing pothole patching projects, while appearing to be giving live pothole by pothole roving reports. Every day he announces programmes that he and his party already determine will sway public opinion in their favour, particularly given our political dispensation in which voters are irascible but are also equally eager to forgive on the premise that “as bad as things be…somethings ah gwaan…”

There are risks in the PNP’s assumption that voters are so indignant with the JLP and are gleefully desperate to get rid of Brogad that they will carefreely follow “backa” the PNP, and willingly buy the proverbial “puss in a bag”. But a little bit of breaking news for the PNP, the electorate is far more discerning and sophisticated than to succumb to that fallacy. If we accept the maxim that, “All is fair and foul in love and war,” then it makes the PNP’s current non-disclosure of policy objectives very myopic. What if the prime minister calls the PNP’s bluff and announces the elections next week?

Finally, if we apply another test that rests on the premise that politics is an open marketplace, where divergent and convergent views clash, but where ideas also contend, then the PNP will have to wheel and come again.

If we apply the standard that politics is about contrast, comparison, followed by choice, then the PNP’s stance on its decision to embargo its plans and policies until the prime minister announces the elections is eminently disqualifying and disturbing. Time come for the PNP to “fly the gate” on its policies. For, as a good friend recently remarked, “Burns, the PNP’s position falls in line with JLP’s stance that PNP has no ideas…” I am in full agreement with his line of reasoning.

That aside, it will not be music to the ears of the current administration, or to the ears of its multitude of supporters to hear inconvenient truths that major socio-economic headwinds remain. There are, in fact, challenges that need specific and better implementable solutions; hence, my gripe with the PNP’s dithering position. There is fertile political ground for an effective opposition to launch its political campaign, present alternatives, speak to innovative ideas, and then move on to defining the opponent without resorting to ad hominems.

While the Government has done a decent job managing fiscal policies, there are yawning gaps in its stewardship and management of the macroeconomy. This is a point the prime minister himself alluded to during his prime-time national address when he spoke about the need for an economic pivot. That the prime minister has also taken on the position of “minister plenipotentiary” with responsibility for economic growth puts him in line for criticisms for failing to deliver meaning economic growth, our low 3.5 per cent unemployment rate notwithstanding. What would a PNP Government do any differently to achieve higher economic growth? We need to know!

We need to know because our economy remains vulnerable to external shocks, geopolitical upheavals, as well as to significant weather events. Take remittances as an example of an area of vulnerability: In 2023 gross remittance inflows represented 19 per cent of our gross domestic product (GDP). Recent changes to US immigration policies, which includes forced mass deportation, could have significant negative impact on personal remittances to Jamaica. Voters want to hear from the PNP about its plans to lessen any potential fallout emanating therefrom.

Without intending to appear alarmist but for context, Statistical Institute of Jamaica (Statin) , in its January 29, 2025, bulletin reported thus: “For the period January to September 2024, Jamaica’s total spending on imports was valued at US$5.5 billion, while earnings from total exports were valued at US$1.36 billion…” In short, that is the equivalent of a trade deficit of US$4.14 Billion or 304 per cent of export earnings.

In addition to that, Jamaica’s economy contracted more than initially estimated during the July to September quarter of 2024. According to a Statin bulletin, “Jamaica’s GDP declined by 3.5 per cent in the third quarter of 2024.” That was a sharper drop than the previously reported 2.8 per cent. Those are mild examples of issues that require specific policy proposals from a Government-in-waiting well before the announcement of the next election.

Therefore, for the PNP to be hiding behind its own barrier of fear — foolish fear as far as I am concerned — is tantamount to political malpractice. There is no discernible strategic brilliance or value in that approach, period. The party ought to possess enough political cojones to cause it to buckle down to revamp its “holding our tongue” position. The party should be busy as bees communicating, defending, and selling its policies with conviction, clarity, and cogency, whilst taking steps to concretise ownership of its idea as unrepentantly and as unhesitantly as it can.

It should do so with such gravitas and panache sufficiently so that not even the infamous “bull buck nor duppy conqueror” would form fool, let alone attempt to “tief” or rebrand them without paying a hefty political price for any type of plagiarism. There is a better way, PNP, and it is to give the people reasons to buy that which the party is selling; to present a shared vision for a better Jamaica, and to explain to the people how that shared vision will advance their lives, the lives of their children, and relatives, as well as their communities.

Jamaican voters are not a monolithic group of low-information voters who are apathetic towards policies. In fact, they are unassumingly smart, multi-policy, multi-interest voters who can spot bovine excrement miles away. It is within this context that I continue to feel that asking the PNP to speak transparently, more frequently, and specifically about policies is not asking too much of the party. But, as Senator Dr Floyd Morris likes to say, “to tell the stinking truth…” time is not on the PNP’s side. I stand firm in my belief that giving voters clear and unambiguous choices will be central to the party’s success.

Christopher Burns is a finance professional. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or burnscg@aol.com.