Editorial | Peter Phillips’ commendable act

Peter Phillips’ ambition of becoming Jamaica’s prime minister may have crashed spectacularly with the People’s National Party (PNP) rout in Thursday’s election. But Dr Phillips’ acceptance of responsibility for the defeat, and his resignation as the PNP’s president, is an unusual, and commendable, act of accountability in Jamaican and Caribbean politics, which should become the norm.

Of course, when a party receives the kind of shellacking as was suffered by the PNP – it won 14 seats in the House, to be left with less than half of its pre-election number in the 63-member chamber – it is understandable that its leaders are chastened in the immediate aftermath of the poll. It is significant, nonetheless, that it isn’t only Dr Phillips who has, thus far, avoided recriminations, or has behaved with equanimity and decorum. Indeed, Phillip Paulwell’s remarks on election night, and the day afterwards, as he embraced the mantle of PNP spokesman, were reasoned, sober and mature. His demeanour will probably mark him for pole position as a successor to Dr Phillips, should he decide to join the race. We expect him to.

SWIFT REBUILDING

“There were certain aspects of our conduct which people did not like, especially in the issue of unity, and we have to build back the trust,” Mr Paulwell, one of the party’s vice-presidents and campaign co-director, said after the scale of the PNP defeat became obvious. “... In short order, we have to summon a united front because that is what is required now to overcome this period.”

This newspaper agrees. For, as Dr Phillips put it at his press conference on Friday, the PNP has to embark on a “swift rebuilding, so that it can continue to fulfil its historic mission”.

That mission, in the immediate circumstance, is to be an effective opposition, or counterweight, to a government that will have at least 49, or 78 per cent, of the seats in Parliament. Such legislative majorities often lead to arrogance in governments, which is inimical to democracy. In that regard, if it is to reclaim the people’s trust, which Mr Paulwell acknowledged is a priori to the party’s long-term viability, the PNP doesn’t have time to spend in a sorrowful, post-election funk. Its 14 MPs must find ways to effectively fulfil their parliamentary obligations, including the chairing of, or occupying seats on, various oversight committees, and sensibly critiquing legislation and government policy.

GREATER OBLIGATION ON HOLNESS

How well the party balances its constitutional responsibilities with its internal political dynamics will be influenced, to a significant degree, by the skill with which it manages the leadership transition. Dr Phillips departure can’t be so quick as to be overly disruptive, or to leave some leadership aspirants with a feeling that they didn’t have a fair shot at the job. But neither should it be as drawn out as the succession to P.J. Patterson at his retirement in 2006, or the campaign for the leadership after Peter Bunting’s challenge of Dr Phillips last year. The drawn-out fights left major rents in the party.

It is not only the PNP, however, to which this newspaper looks for judicious and prudent behaviour in the aftermath of the general election. The greater obligation, in this respect, rests with Prime Minister Andrew Holness, as he constructs a new government.

The prime minister’s big parliamentary majority gives him greater flexibility in shaping his new administration than was possible in the last term. With his swelled numbers, Mr Holness, however, has to avoid any impulse to hubris or imperiousness. For, as we noted previously, it is not difficult for governments, even those with super margins, to have their mandate evaporate when their actions lead to a loss of public trust.

In this regard, we note, and applaud, the absence of triumphalism in Mr Holness’ post-election speeches, as well as his declared commitment to “integrity and probity in the government”. That is important in the context of the various scandals that were attached to the last administration.

The PM’s big majority, and the political insulation that it provides, allows Mr Holness the freedom to exclude from his Cabinet persons about whom the public’s perception of “integrity and probity” may be challenged, as well as those who may have been retained in the past because of their political clout. Bold action now will not be as risky a proposition as Mr Holness may have imagined.