Don Anderson | Whither the People’s National Party?

The defeat of the People’s National Party (PNP) in Thursday’s election was expected. The magnitude of the loss was not. To lose 49-14, as the seat count currently stands, demands a serious evaluation of the current perception of the party and the extent to which it does now and can in the future connect with the voting public.

Congratulations to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) under the leadership of Andrew Holness for beating the PNP in almost every aspect of politicking to win with such a decisive margin.

The PNP, for its part, must now sit down and do some serious introspection, not finger-pointing, to try to understand what were some of the factors that led to this landslide loss, four and a half years after it held 42 of the 63 seats in Parliament. It might seem trite to indicate that winning an election is about being able to connect with the voting population and convincing them to vote for you. But indeed it is nothing more than this, and it is clear from the data that the PNP has just about lost the ability to do so.

FACTORS DOGGING THE PNP

The PNP was perceived in the ‘80s to be a united party, amid the obvious divisions within the JLP. The JLP problems led some members to form the National Democratic Movement which contested the 1997 election as a third party. It was not that the PNP did not have its own challenges, but as D.K. Duncan once said, “the PNP has the ability to manage disunity better”.

This obtained until 2006, when the first obvious splits in the party emerged. There were five contenders for the leadership left vacant by P.J. Patterson’s resignation. We conducted a poll to see how this was being perceived. ‘Democracy at work’ was the headline in the The Gleaner.

Since then, the respective perceptions have changed. By 2016, the PNP was perceived to be very divided and fractious, the JLP, on the other hand, seen as better able to manage disunity. It was clear that the PNP’s public attempt to display unity was no more than a veneer. Divided parties generally do not win elections.

LIFELINE HANDED IN 2011

After losing the 2007 election by 32 to 28, the PNP was handed a lifeline in 2011, by the resignation of then PM Bruce Golding (following the extradition of Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke) and the intemperate and ill-conceived calling of the election ahead of schedule by a then politically naïve PM Holness.

I recall the late Edward Seaga calling me on the morning after the 2011 election to ask, “What’s the rush, why not wait until after the London Olympics, and celebrations of the Independence, when there would be a good feel among the people?” The JLP did not serve out its full term.

The PNP won by a massive 42-21 majority.

This was a period characterised by:

• Obvious dissent within the PNP

• The emergence of opposing factions

• Overconfidence

• Disconnect with the voters

• Amid strong, prudent fiscal management by Finance Minister Peter Phillips.

The JLP unexpectedly won the 2016 election by a knife’s edge, under the leadership of a now far more experienced and far more astute political leader in Holness. One might be inclined to say the rest is history.

2016 TO PRESENT

Since 2016, the PNP, as if in a stupor from the loss, went into further decline, manifested by successive losses in by-elections, growing disaffection between the electorate and itself, as shown in all the polls conducted, clear and covert questions about the leadership and jostling into position by several aspirants.

During this time, the PNP lost its identity and image, had no coherent, cohesive message to the voting public, saw obvious dissent and internal challenges, and had generally no clear direction.

DISCONNECT WITH VOTING PUBLIC

Election Year # Voting PNP # Voting JLP Advantage

2011 463,232 405,234 PNP 58,098

2016 433,000 436,000 JLP 3,000

CHANGE -30,232 +31,234

2020 304,000 406,000 JLP 102,000

CHANGE -129,000 -30,000

OVERALL CHANGE 2011-2020 -159,232 APPROX +1000 APPROX

Source: EOJ election results 2011 to 2020

Between 2011 and 2016, 174,000 new voters were added to the roll under the PNP’s watch. Yet in the 2016 election with a 42-21 majority, 30,000 fewer persons voted for the PNP than in the 2011 election, while 30,000 more voted for the JLP. The JLP won by 3,000 votes. That should have been a wake-up call. No. Instead, the PNP went into a free fall, amid open divisions, by-election losses, leadership challenges and poor poll ratings for the leadership and the party.

By 2020, another 94,000 persons were added to the voters roll. Yet, 129,000 fewer voted for the PNP than did in 2016, while the JLP’s loss was 30,000. The numbers speak for themselves. Overall, between 2011 and 2020, 159,000 fewer persons voted for the PNP compared to a gain of 1,000 by the JLP. The washout in Thursday’s election is largely due to this factor. If you can’t get your people out to vote on election day, chances are you can’t win an election and greater chances are that you will lose by a significant margin, for example, Thursday’s election.

The PNP’s existence over the last four and a half years can be summarised as follows:

• Voter disconnect/apathy

• Disorganised

• Covert and overt leadership issues

• Factions not healed

• Serious shortage of human and financial resources

• Absence of targeted messaging

• Inferior public relations campaign

• Declining favourability ratings

• Failure to recognise growing importance of youth vote.

This amounts to a failure to give the voters a good enough reason to vote for them.

FUTURE?

The loss of so many prominent members in the election leaves the party threadbare in terms of viable candidates, and indeed in terms of a leader that can steer the transformation that is so vitally needed. Serious, balanced introspection is urgently needed to avoid further slippage.

Don Anderson is executive chairman of Market Research Services Limited and senior adjunct lecturer in research methods at The University of the West Indies, Mona. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com