Is Andrew safely anchored?

Ian Boyne, Contributor

MANY SAY Andrew Holness is an interim leader of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). That he doesn't have the toughness, the nerve, the fight in him to really tek it to Portia and her Government. That he has been allowing them to get away with too much while he seems to be asleep; occasionally waking to faintly protest.

Attention has again been focused on the JLP and its leadership as it celebrates its 70th anniversary. Many say the JLP is a mere shadow of itself and that if it does not quickly reclaim its former glory, it could be in the political wilderness for some time. A number of persons believe that Audley Shaw, Finance spokesman, has the spunk, the daring, the audacity, the fire in his stomach, and the unquenchable ambition to lead that is just the right combination to take on this Government.

There are a number of Labourites who feel that "the sweet boy thing" which is embodied in Andrew Holness just doesn't suit the times of austerity and hardships which are upon us. The Government, they opine, needs to know it has an Opposition scrutinising them like hawks and eager to devour them like vultures. What if we don't pass the International Monetary Fund (IMF) tests and harsher austerity measures have to be imposed? What if the dollar continues to slide, prices skyrocket, unemployment increases along with crime, and more and more people lose any sense of hope; who is there to stand up for us? Who will stand in the breach? Who will send the message to this Government that enough is enough? These are the questions people are asking and many don't see Andrew Holness as providing reassuring answers.

Former party leader Edward Seaga says the party must finally settle on whom it wants as leader and stop halting between opinions. Seaga himself delivered an interesting lecture on the history of the JLP recently as part of the anniversary celebrations. What was striking from his lecture were the clear differences between the parties over the years, the clear differences in choices before the Jamaican people. From Federation versus self-government and Independence in the 1950s and '60s to socialism versus capitalism in the 1970s and 1980s, there were tangible differences between what the JLP was offering compared to what the PNP stood for.

In that lecture, there were some noteworthy admissions like the following: "Alexander Bustamante and the Jamaica Labour Party were absorbed earlier with liberating the power of the working class and focusing their energies on securing a better life. That was the opening statement of the JLP. Nationhood was not on the agenda in the early days". But with the PNP going for federation with other Caribbean states, nationalism was a convenient pivot for Bustamante and his Jamaica Labour Party.

Seaga waxed eloquent in capturing this in his kick-off 70th anniversary lecture: "The Jamaica Labour Party, led by Sir Alexander Bustamante, moved to the forefront of the impasse, to the driver's seat, directed the traffic and pulled Jamaica out of its paralytic association in the Federation of the West Indies with a resounding victory in the referendum of September 19, 1961, a pivotal date in our history". Seaga's theme was that the JLP has been a liberating force in the Jamaican political landscape.

Impressive economic growth

So the JLP led us into Independence and ushered in one of the most impressive periods of economic growth and institution-building in our history. Seaga himself was behind much of that. We should not gainsay the achievements of this period. Yes there was a social lag and social inequalities grew. But we must not give short shrift to the impressive growth which took place and the lasting institutions which were built by Seaga. The 1970s were to prove the most turbulent in our history.

Seaga's view is that while the first PNP term in office was characterised by what he saw as Norman Manley's "failed federal adventure", the second term under Michael Manley "became dominated again by a foreign adventure, this time with an alien ideology and uneasy fraternity with socialist and communist bloc nations". Seaga concedes that, "Michael Manley tried to do what Bustamante and the JLP had done in the first and second terms of Government. Where Bustamante had liberated the dynamic of the working class and energised a prideful independent people, Manley wanted to unleash the Jamaican psyche, raise social consciousness and create an egalitarian society". At least he is more generous than many tribalist Labourites.

Pulling up vs pulling down

He contrasted Bustamante and the JLP's approach to a "pulling up" while Manley's was a "pulling down". The JLP was for expanding the cake while Manley was for sharing up the cake. Seaga's analysis, however, should have taken him to the contemporary period. Whereas he sees our urgent task now being adherence to the Charter of Rights, his baby, he should face squarely our grave economic challenges and constricted policy space. He should have pointed out how the PNP and JLP have converged in this contemporary period. Herein lies the greatest dilemma for the JLP: It can ignore this convergence in Opposition and play raw politics or tell the people the truth about our stark choices and its own limited maneuverability.

A major part of the problem people are having with Andrew Holness - including those in media who think he is too indecisive and not strong enough - is that he refuses to be the full-blown old-style politician. I say full-blown for he has made enough concessions to that style of politics But let's be realistic: politics is the art of the possible and if he totally refuses to play to the gallery and be Machiavellian, he won't ever go to Jamaica House again. He has to play some old-style politics, both to stir up his base and keep them excited and to attract voters who
love the "pram pram!".

He has to be able to "chuck
some badness" in our badness-honour culture, as political scientist
Obika Gray puts it. Why many will give Shaw more than the edge over
Holness is that Shaw is a master at old-style politics. Shaw knows how
to pander to the base and to rouse the rabble. Shaw can "lick shot".
Shaw knows how to uncover the scandals - real or imagined. He is a
master of the platform, a real showman. Plus he can talk finance and the
economy. He can speak the language of uptown people and he has good
relations with Jamaica's business elite. Holness is almost a recluse. He
does not turn up at the homes of business moguls and is nobody's man.
He's basically a loner and an introvert. Seaga could get away with that
because of his stature. Holness has yet to build
that.

I am not sure, however, that Shaw wants to
challenge Holness for leadership. Certainly his public comments have not
been in that direction. I think Holness is good for the JLP. He is
sober, rational, placid, amiable, and highly intelligent. He has
composure and possesses a pleasant personality. He is certainly not
irascible and taken up with his own ego. He is a very fine human
being.

Heart in the right
place

Holness is a democrat at heart. He means Jamaica
well and as my late friend Rex Nettleford would say, 'his heart is in
the right place'. The party would do well to rally behind him. They have
in Holness a leader who understands the need for economic
transformation; a leader who knows that it has to be business unusual.
Holness can't take to the streets and engage in wild polemics over this
Government's austerity programnme because he knows in his heart of
hearts that there is no practical alternative to the strategies the
Government is pursuing.

If he is elected prime
minister, he would have to pursue these same IMF strategies. He has made
a number of statements which are puzzling in light of what he does
know, but he has to play some politics to remain relevant to the masses
and, unfortunately, media people who speak out of both sides of their
mouths.

The same media which call for a new politics
and for politicians not to fool up the people are impatient with Holness
because he is not perceived as "tough" and "decisive". What is
toughness and decisiveness? Louding up the Government and rabble
rousing? Making a lot of noise condemning this and condemning that? The
media must support a responsible Opposition which should be willing in a
new politics to work with the Government in the public good rather than
engage in reflexive adversarial politics.

The times
require sober, level-headed leadership. It requires a responsible
Opposition, not a strident, belligerent one.Yes, a vigilant, bulldog one
but not one pandering to people's ignorance and sense of rage.
Exploiting that sense of rage over austerity and then implanting your
own set of austerity measures - essentially continuing with the IMF
programme left off by the PNP - is not responsible leadership and the
media must not join angry and hungry people expressing blind
rage.

Andrew Holness must be given his fair chance to
lead the Jamaica Labour Party. He is a fine representative of
post-Independent Jamaica.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist. Send comments to columns@gleanerjm.com