EDITORIAL - It's Mr Holness' mandate!

Audley Shaw and his key supporters, Christopher Tufton and Ed Bartlett, have been unreasonable and churlish and may well be accused of attempting to hold their newly reconfirmed party leader to ransom.

That is unfortunate, for the trio still have much to contribute to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). But their behaviour suggests irreverence for democracy, a naivety about politics, and betrayal of the spirit of the JLP in the immediate aftermath of Sunday's vote.

Mr Shaw challenged Andrew Holness, on the claim that he was a weak and indecisive leader who did little over two years to rejuvenate the JLP. Bitter words came from each camp, among the harshest by Dr Tufton. He characterised Mr Holness as an insecure man who could not abide bright people close to him.

In the end, 57 per cent of the JLP delegates voted for Mr Holness. It may not have been a wipeout, but the victory was sufficiently emphatic for absence of doubt about Mr Holness' mandate.

ANDREW'S RESPONSIBILITY

In such a circumstance, Mr Holness must have a free hand to shape the party, bearing in mind the greater responsibility that rests with him. He will feel the consequence if he abuses his mandate. In arriving at his decision, Mr Holness is entitled to consult with, and take advice from, whomsoever he wishes.

Significantly, Mr Shaw was offered his old finance portfolio in Mr Holness' Shadow Cabinet. Mr Bartlett was shifted from tourism to foreign affairs. Dr Tufton was offered nothing.

Messrs Shaw and Bartlett declined their nominations, the latter primarily because he didn't like his new post. Mr Shaw complained about a dispute over whether Dr Tufton was appropriately nominated for a deputy leader's post, as well as Mr Holness' signal of his wish for the resignations of the eight JLP senators.

Things would be different if these matters were being thrashed out, even loudly, behind closed doors. But Mr Shaw and Mr Bartlett chose to go public, releasing their letters of complaints, effectively challenging Mr Holness' authority. Mr Shaw accused his party leader of pursuing a "non-unifying path", of which Dr Tufton is the primary target.

If he intends to build a viable party, Mr Holness needs the JLP's best talent on board. Dr Tufton should be among them, if both men can resolve their differences.

That, however, may require Dr Tufton, at least for a time, spending time on the sidelines, and certainly removed from Mr Holness' inner circle.

INTERNAL RESOLUTION

In this respect, it is important to note a difference between the resolution of Dr Tufton's vice-presidential nomination, which is to be resolved by the party's internal mechanisms, and Mr Holness' wish for Senate resignations.

Constitutionally, appointments to the Senate cannot be revoked by either a prime minister or opposition leader.

We, nonetheless, believe that in a circumstance such as obtains in the JLP, Mr Holness is right to expect the resignations. The senators have a moral responsibility to oblige. The leader should have a free hand to name people in whom he has confidence, and who he can be reasonably sure will pursue his party's policies.

There is a fact being overlooked. Up to four ministers can reside in the Senate. If a prime minister revokes the ministerial appointment of someone in the Senate in whom he/she has lost confidence, is he/she stuck with that person, and limited options regardless?

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.