Think again, Mr Holness

THE EDITOR, Sir:

Immediately following Andrew Holness' publicly televised manoeuvre in 2011 that jettisoned him to leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leader and prime minister, I wrote a letter to The Gleaner, headlined 'Think again, Mr Holness', which was published on September 29, 2011.

The contents served as both an insight into the ambitions of men, and as a bit of foresight that inexperience and perhaps even immaturity would in future (self-)stymie and (self-)inflict this basically bright young man.

I believe that the short time-span since 2011 proved me correct on these perceptions regarding Mr Holness, with evidence of his premature call and defeat at the polls; a less-than-par performance as opposition leader; the so-soon challenge to his leadership in 2013; his blunder and loss of public credibility after his leadership victory with the removal of Chris Tufton, Arthur Williams et al; and the general 'dog with the rag doll' treatment of him in the media etc.

My 2011 'perceptiveness' had been illuminated by the simple profoundness of 'Peter's Principle', which conveys that each individual essentially has what can be described as a skills-radius or performance zenith, beyond which we become vulnerable and incompetent when placed at new levels/tasks that require unfamiliar skills or talent.

My frank opinion is that Andrew Holness is just not a good enough actor in the theatre in which he has thrust himself. He is, thus, almost sure to overact in some situations, and be genuinely sub-par at other times. This lack of natural talent and an obvious interpretation deficit are bound to make him prone to more mistakes and to do himself, his party and the country ultimate harm.

Part of the theatrical twist life plays as it sifts men is that the contest against Shaw surprisingly and interestingly saw senior party members (Baugh, Charles, Samuda, Smith et al) who Holness' original 2011 tactic had basically undermined, actually siding with him in the challenge. But such is the curious expediency of political bed-fellows. And obviously consumed with the bravado of his victory and bouyed by the 'muscle' surrogates within his party, Mr Holness consequently erred by not facilitating rapprochement within his party.

Holness' actions suggests an intrigue and penchant for the Machiavellian manoeuvres of historical despots and political craftsmen. His more careful study of these historical figures however, would unequivocally inform him that although they self-created and succeeded through opportunism, subterfuge and oftentimes coercion, they eventually self-destructed or left a damaging legacy because of egotistical ambitions and overreach.

The apparent continued tensions within the JLP, the current bust-up with Karl Samuda and reported new assertions of Holness' leadership incompetence, have the making of his demise.

But while Holness toys with bravado (which is the recklesssness of all men) and effectively mis-steps, the real tragedy for the country is that at this critical juncture in our nation's history, we have two sub-par performers at the helm of the two major political parties.

And to the obviously better of the two, I once more implore, think again, Mr Holness.

Donald Wray

docwraythinktankup@gmail.com