IT is not always the brightest man who gets the prize; not the fastest man who wins the race; or the best man who lands the job. Otherwise, Dr Peter Phillips would certainly have been prime minister of Jamaica.

But, instead of lamenting what Dr Phillips did not get the chance to do, political historians could yet see the outgoing Member of Parliament assume the best role he might play for Jamaica yet — a statesman giving to the nation-building project his vast experience as one of the most qualified men in public service and academia.

Last week, 31 years after he first entered the Jamaican House of Representatives, Dr Phillips undoubtedly signalled that he had begun the transition from electoral politics in what “will likely be my last opportunity to contribute to a debate in the House”.

Indeed, if he had truly intended to wrest himself from the grip of tribal politics he chose a difficult time in which to do so.

In the heat of an election year, when the tribes know only three pronouns — me, myself, and I — they might even be suspicious of the slightest notion of nobility coming from the other side. And yet, isn’t it also the best time to prove one’s sincerity of purpose and the honesty of one’s intentions?

In his address, titled ‘Lessons from history’, Dr Phillips, sharing some of the lessons regarding processes of governance that he had observed over the years serving his People’s National Party (PNP) and the country, acknowledged the difficulty and admitted he was hesitant, “because we are close to elections, and in the fervid atmosphere of the times some are going to take offence”.

“Fundamentally, this is my starting point. It is worth sustaining our sense of collective purpose in this House… This Parliament, which emerged after Universal Adult Suffrage was achieved in 1944, was the result of a common striving for rights on behalf of the Jamaican people.

“The final agreements regarding the structure and content of the Independence constitution were settled jointly… More to the point, the overarching lesson of our years as an independent nation is the fact that all our great accomplishments have been the result of collective endeavours.

“Nothing highlights this more than our efforts to reduce public debt and achieve sustained economic growth — [a task still not achieved],” he said.

Successive International Monetary Fund (IMF) programmes had entailed fiscal restraint, public sector wage restraint, and the general population endured a major tax burden, he stressed, pointing to other examples of collective efforts, among them, “perhaps the most salutary and inspiring example” of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica.

“The countless hours spent by political representatives in the early years… charting a path of electoral reform, gave rise to an understanding that neither party, when in office, could or should try to exercise ‘ownership’ over the body politic or nation. Rather, we were simply ‘stewards’ in a ‘joint tenancy arrangement’.

“The essence of nation-building,” Dr Phillips concluded, “is the creation of shared loyalties and trust in authority and political structures, but most of all a trust in each other… We may have different views about programmes and policies but, ultimately, the objectives ought to be the same.”

Let Dr Phillips join Messrs P J Patterson and Bruce Golding as treasured statesmen.