Holness for team of rivals?

Ian Boyne, Contributor

The editorials in The Gleaner and the Observer last Thursday represented the two differing and dominant perspectives on the issues facing the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) following the re-election of Andrew Holness as leader last Sunday.

The Gleaner, in its editorial titled 'It's Mr Holness' mandate!', says forcefully: "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." The Gleaner charges that "their behaviour suggests irreverence for democracy, naivety about politics, and betrayal of the spirit of the JLP in the immediate aftermath of Sunday's vote".

In other words, elections have consequences and Audley Shaw and his backers must get it in their heads that they have lost their challenge for leadership and that Andrew Holness has won decisively. They must 'cease and settle', lick their wounds, and cool out for a while. Andrew Holness owes them nothing! Man A Yard fi stay a him yard!

The Observer represented the opposite view. Its editorial was titled 'Mr Holness can learn from Mrs Simpson Miller'. The lesson, of course, being how she embraced her challenger Peter Phillips - even after two rounds - gave him the powerful finance ministry, didn't discriminate against his backers, and mended fences in time to thrash Andrew Holness in the last election.

"With 2,012 votes, Mr Shaw has proven that he commands a significant constituency in the JLP, and it is not wise to ignore that. Merely offering him back the shadow finance portfolio while sidelining some of his key supporters is putting him in an untenable position."

In other words, cut Audley some slack, make concessions to him and his team of losers, keep them safe in the fold, and help to heal their wounds.You need them.

HOSTILE CRITICS LET
LOOSE

Truth is, both positions have to be nuanced.
Andrew Holness can't be naïve and, ostrich-like, hide from the fact that
there is something called undermining, sabotage, set-up for failure,
etc. The leadership challenge forced into the open hostile critics in
his own party who were smiling up with him previously while denying
rumours they were not totally with him. So confident were many of their
victory that their tongues let loose on the campaign trail, telling us
what an awful, unsuitable and unwinnable leader Andrew Holness
is.

And you expect Andrew Holness to have selective
amnesia or to believe all these people have suddenly changed their
minds? Andrew might be soft, gentlemanly and a nice guy - Mama P's
well-brought-up son - but he is no fool. If he can avoid being in the
same room with some of these people who have declared that they are not
very fond of him, he would be tempted to do so.

But
because he is no fool, he has to be pragmatic. He has to focus on his
overarching goals and not be held hostage by his emotions. He has to
have emotional mastery. This is essential in leadership - especially transformational leadership. He can't give
in to primal instincts. Andrew has to remember what Bruce Golding said: A
piece of the JLP can't beat the People's National Party (PNP). Even
when the JLP is at its full strength, it is hard to match the juggernaut
of the PNP political machinery.

If
Andrew wants to win state power, he can't listen to those bitterness
carriers and hate-mongers who want to settle old scores. These people
have facilitated his winning, and he will still need their visceral
support, but he must be level-headed. He needs to think of not just
Shaw, Tufton, Bartlett and Chuck but of the 2,000-plus delegates who
supported that camp. He needs those boots on the ground. If they feel
vanquished, humiliated, disrespected and disregarded, that can't help
Andrew in his endgame of taking power from the PNP. You can't cut off
your nose to spite your face.

You need emotional
intelligence and self-mastery to know when you need to work with even
enemies to achieve your goals. Andrew needs to read The Art of
War. He is a young, bright and very capable leader. He can't
afford to be held captive by old men and women with old grudges and
decades-long bitterness. He must resist the toxic
influence.

This is Andrew's test of leadership: How to
heal the deep wounds in his party, assure those who voted against him
that his is a policy of malice toward none and love for all, while
ensuring that he has in influential positions key people who are
watching his back and looking out for those who would sabotage him. It's
a delicate balance. Andrew can't be a naïve. There is the issue of
trust. But the building back of that trust is not just Andrew's
responsibility.

It does not build trust when you meet
with your party leader and then issue a press release making demands on
your leader. Delicate negotiations are not conducted in the press. And
some of the things said since Sunday should be kept out of the media. In
fact, though I am a media man, I think it would be wise for both sides -
but especially Audley's group - to stay away from interviews for a
while. I know they realise that could be costly, for they know Andrew,
as an astute politician and democrat, will respond to pressure from
media.

Politicians use the media to further their own
ends. We like the juicy, salacious news. Stories about buff, baff,
turmoil and dogfights make us in media salivate. So we will goad for
news. And politicians use us to get their demands met. But politicians
have to know when to pull back.

FOLLOW PM'S
EXAMPLE

Andrew is strong enough not to have a shadow
Cabinet of yes-men and -women. He should have prevailed upon Delroy
Chuck to be a part of his shadow Cabinet. He should have shown his
magnanimity by reappointing Tufton and not asking all senators to
resign. These are missteps. He should, indeed, follow Portia's example
and not marginalise those who campaigned against
him.

I recommend that he studies Abraham Lincoln. I
know he is busy, but I recommend Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Doris
Kearns Goodwin's 915-page book on Lincoln titled Team of
Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln is
the president who has influenced Barack Obama, who has adopted his
team-of-rivals approach in appointing his former challenger Hillary
Clinton as secretary of state and promoted others of her backers. (Bill
Clinton himself has played a major part in Democratic politics under
Obama.)

Lincoln promoted his key rivals and promoted
men brighter than him (Andrew does not have to fear that, for there is
none of his opponents who towers over him intellectually. And I think
Tufton is dead wrong that he fears bright people and is insecure. I
disagree vehemently.)

"The powerful
competitors who had originally disdained Lincoln became colleagues who
helped him steer the country through its darkest days. Lincoln's
political genius (is) revealed through his extraordinary array of
personal qualities that enabled him to form friendships with men who had
previously opposed him; to repair injured feelings that, left untended,
might have escalated into permanent
hostility."

Every member of Lincoln's
administration, said this pre-eminent political historian, was
"better known, better educated and more experienced in public
life than Lincoln. Their presence in the Cabinet might have threatened
to eclipse the obscure prairie lawyer from Springfield. It soon became
clear, however, that Abraham Lincoln would emerge the undisputed captain
of this most unusual Cabinet, truly a team of
rivals."

Andrew, you can become our Lincoln,
for your own overarching goal of capturing state power from the PNP.
None of your competitors can eclipse you, and you would have
demonstrated to the nation that you are truly a transform-ational
leader.

If you can unite your famously factious,
divisive party, maybe we can later trust you to unite this fractious,
tribalistic nation. You have a lot going for you. You trounced a
much-better-financed, better-hyped, better-touted team. You came up
against a man known for his extraordinary platform skills; a man well
connected with the business class - and you defeated him. The delegates
voted for tradition. They said it was indecent to challenge you. That
Audley should 'go siddung'.

POLITICAL
CULTURE

Tradition, incumbency, strong organisational
skills and having some key trench warriors helped the Andrew Holness
campaign. Andrew himself is a nice guy with a good Sunday-school image,
but he had his bloodhounds out there. Don't believe our politics has
gone beyond 'ray-ray' and that that counts for nothing. Remember the
ray-ray man got over 2,000 votes and it must not be naively assumed that
Andrew's 2,704 delegates were just voting for Teacher Andrew, and that
they don't want a strident, aggressive leader to stand up to the PNP,
too.

Political culture - in this case a hostility to
democratic challenge - played a major part in Andrew's victory. Pearnel
and Babsy said it straight: We don't remove our leaders. We wait for a
vacancy. That's how we do it round here. And so say these 2,704
delegates. Plus, Andrew is highly likeable, affable, has a lovely smile,
is handsome and is quite relatable to the masses. That is why I, unlike
a number of my colleagues, was not prepared to write off his chances
and when pressed as to who I gave the edge by Cliff Hughes two Fridays
ago, I said Andrew, because of the incumbency factor, tradition, plus
his own likeability.

But I knew what he was up against
with this formidable challenge by Audley. Full congratulations go to
Andrew for defeating a well-oiled machinery.

Andrew
must now demonstrate that he believes in democratic challenges. If he
marginalises all those who oppose him, particularly Chris Tufton, a
bright, debonair and talented man, he would signal that he does not
really welcome a challenge, contrary to what he has voiced. Show by your
action, Mr Holness, that you are not offended by the cut and thrust -
even the bruises - of democratic challenge. By your deeds, we shall know
you.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Email
feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and
ianboyne1@yahoo.com.