Purge JLP of back-stabbers

Gordon Robunson, Contributor

The political circus has left town. Only a faraway braying sound and a lingering scent of eau-de-turd remind that, up to November 10, yet another mad distraction from reality so consumed the nation that all else was ignored by our (m)ass media. Gazillions of dollars were thrown about like confetti; goats were curried by the thousand; and the armband manufacturing industry flourished. Yessiree, Bob, the circus had come to town.

From the outset, I told you this circus, aka a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leadership challenge, was nothing but a doomed dice-rolling exercise by Audley 'Are You' Shaw, backed by a Big Money Man who craved more political influence. A lot of naïve drivel about unity; JLP victory; and victory for democracy was churned out by Shaw during this lunatic fringe lunge for raw power, but if these were at the forefront of his consciousness, why didn't he simply advise Big Money Man to donate the funds to the party for the next general election?

Instead, he conducted a bitter, soul-destroying attack on Young Andrew's leadership, thereby providing precious fodder for PNP advertising consultants. In a column headlined 'Shaw putting self above party' (September 1), I asked 'Are You' Shaw questions, the answers to which could help readers analyse his motives. For example: "What's all this about resigning as deputy leader? Is that a petulant warning that you want all or you'll pick up your marbles and go home? ... Is THAT acting in the party's best interests or your own?"

I tried to expose Shaw's actions, which told a different story to his words. I wrote: "When Bruce was dumped, you were front-runner to succeed. Again, you suddenly withdrew in favour of Young Andrew. The JLP was then in shambles. Was your decision to stand down born of an opportunistic desire to avoid responsibility for the shambolic beating you foresaw? Or was it in the JLP's best interests?"

SIGNS WERE
CLEAR

As usual, nobody paid the slightest attention to
my warnings. Yet the signposts weren't hidden. It was only four months
pre-challenge that The Gleaner reported Shaw as
emphatically denying any leadership challenge plan (see 'No vacancy' -
Shaw downplays talk that he's to challenge Holness for JLP's top job
come November'; Gleaner, May
5)

"There's no vacancy for leadership," declared Shaw
when asked if he plans to challenge Holness at the party's next annual
conference.

"... So there's no need for me to
contemplate that."

By September, he made it appear the
JLP was falling apart and there was an urgent need for a leadership
change.

Make no mistake: This, like the second Peter
Phillips challenge in the PNP, may have been permissible on a strict
reading of the rules but, in real terms, was unnecessary,
unsportsmanlike, ill-advised and, accordingly, to my mind, shameful. If
Shaw (or Phillips) had succeeded, it would've meant the end of political
party stability and every sitting party leader (including Shaw himself)
would be forever hesitant to lead decisively for fear of cliques and
challenges. This is why mid-term challenges to sitting leaders are coup
attempts and not democracy in action. Party leaders should be allowed a
full election cycle and their performances assessed after each general
election. Unless there's retirement or death, no mid-term leadership
challenge is, in my opinion, advantageous. There's no upside, and
disingenuous attempts to categorise it as 'energising the party' or
'victory for democracy' are absurd.

Nobody listened.
Nobody read the signs. Most important, our (m)ass media spent the
campaign toadying to 'Are You' Shaw as if he'd already won. One popular
radio station declared Shaw the winner from the day of his launch based
on the large gathering that had come out in the rain "to support Shaw".
Thereafter, that station's daily sycophantic fawning over Shaw was a
gruesome embarrassment. Oh dear! What do they know of politics who only
politics knows?

Jamaicans are more mature than ever
about these things. Ordinary Jamaicans can spot a sham a mile away. But,
if the sham offers free food and drink, we'll turn up in the pouring
rain, fill our bellies and then do what we think is best inside the
voting booth.

See Boops deh, yes, we gwaan go
nyam him out.

See Boops deh, oonu
gwaan go eat him out.

See Boops
dey, gwaan go tek a set.

See Boops
deh, give him hickey pon him neck.

William
Maragh, The Don Dada, Super Cat, taught Jamaica the concept of 'nyam dem
out' in 1986 and political supporters have slowly but surely caught on.
Not so local (m)ass media. Even after the results were announced, said
radio station whined and complained about how unfair the whole thing
suddenly was. Legendary constitutional lawyer Dr Lloyd Barnett was
summoned to tell Jamaica that the opposition leader had no express
constitutional power to remove senators. Lloyd pointed out there'd been
no change in opposition leader. But there was a sea change in the
opposition leader's declared support within the party. Ought he to
ignore the vitriol spewed against him in private and public by his
appointees and simply press on with business as usual? What would 'Are
You' Shaw have done in Young Andrew's position?

This
is neither a legal nor constitutional issue. It's a political issue and I
hope Young Andrew doesn't shirk from treating it as such. Nothing in
the Constitution says he can remove senators. Equally, nothing says he
can't.

But, legally speaking, Lloyd the Legend seems
to have forgotten that, in the case of Eugennie Ebanks v the
Betting Gaming and Lotteries Commission (Civil Appeal No 97 of
2003; Judgment December 20, 2005), he submitted to the Court of Appeal
as follows:

" ... It is an elementary rule of
statutory interpretation that, in a statute, a provision empowering an
entity to employ also carries with it a right to
dismiss."

Is this 'elementary' rule
restricted to statutory interpretation, Lloyd? Is it different when
interpreting the Constitution? If so, why? Not only is it an elementary
rule of statutory interpretation, it's an elementary rule of common
sense. If I serve because of the pleasure of the opposition leader, I
also serve at his pleasure. How could it be
otherwise?

With regard to opposition senators, Section
35(3) of The Constitution provides: "The remaining eight
senators shall be appointed by the governor general, acting in
accordance with the advice of the leader of the Opposition, by
instrument under the Broad Seal."

Despite
the formal inclusion of the GG, it's pellucid that, since the GG must
act "in accordance with the advice of the leader of the
Opposition", the person making the appointment is the
opposition leader.

Another great Lloyd (Lovindeer)
fine-tuned the modern relationship between political leader and voters
in 'Government Boops'.

Girls (calling):
Boops, Boops, Boops? Boops: Me no have no
corn!

'BOOPS FI
GOVAMENT'

Cost of living rises every day. So, if
someone call you 'Boops', don't feel no way. 'Cause, whether yu
ragamuffin or yu decent, all a we a boops fe govament ...
.

The electorate, whether intra-party or nationwide,
is tired of playing Boops to its party once it's been voted into power.
We're tired of the regular increases in taxes while deficits widen.
We're tired of price increases and frozen salaries coming at us hand in
hand. We're tired. Sick and tired. So, when we get the rare chance to
treat one of THEM as a Boops, we'll be there in our thousands to do just
that.

Easy, Papa Tax, me sey easy nuh man.
Di girls vex wid yu all over de lan' 'cause yu tax de boops till him
can't function.

See Boops deh,
taxes a nyam him out. See Boops deh, govament a eat him out. See Boops
deh, light bill a bu'n him out. See Boops deh, water rate a wash him
out.

Sey t'ings and times really
getting hard. Everyone a try fe go live abroad. One time Boops used to
carry de swing, but now poor Boops can't let off
nuttin.

So we welcome any opportunity to
turn the tables. If a nonsensical political circus is coming to town,
we'll 'support'. We'll 'nyam out' the one spending the money and then
vote for who we want to vote for.

The media let
Jamaica down with its kowtowing coverage of the campaign. Anybody still
wondering why? Remember Goodman's Law? Don't ask if it's about the
money. It's ALWAYS about the money.

With more than 20
radio stations, two free-to-air TV stations and numerous cable stations,
Jamaica's advertising dollars can' share. With Audley 'Are You' Shaw's
campaign apparently awash with cash, he was the only one pursuing a
national media campaign with media adverts. True to form, stations, like
moths to a flame, tailored their coverage in favour of the cash. Shaw
had permanent access without challenge. Young Andrew's (or supporters')
infrequently broadcast quotes were almost always met with editorial
derision.

But the circus is over. Jamaica needs the
JLP to focus on its job as Opposition. There've been calls for unity.
Not from me. Political 'unity' is overrated. As Young Andrew discovered,
unity is but another of this world's illusions. The reality is Young
Andrew, momentarily in complete control, must use this opportunity to
build an effective Opposition. If it's also united, that's a
bonus.

Forgiveness is a charming Christian concept
best left to the Church. Those who, given a choice, simply disagreed
with the leader can be given a second chance, but not active
back-stabbers. In my opinion, Young Andrew will NEVER experience unity
from any back-stabber. Ask the O-Jays:

(What
they do?)

(They smile in your
face)

All the time they want to
take your place

The back-stabbers
(back-stabbers).

This is no time for
reconciliation. It's time to purge the party of deadwood, especially
those selfish, conniving plotters who exposed their thinly veiled
contempt for Young Andrew. Nobody, including Young Andrew, is
indispensable. There's no single source of funding. If I'm wrong, the
party dies whenever that individual should pass away, so Young Andrew
must keep him/her in vitamins for life.

No, Young
Andrew, too much forgiveness will only ensure it happens again. Identify
the back-stabbers and dump them now. Seek replacements from Generation
Next at your leisure. You'll be surprised how much better your
organisation will be.

Peace and
love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email
feedback to
columns@gleanerjm.com.

Columnist
Gordon Robinson says Andrew Holness (centre) must show no mercy to
anti-loyalists. Chris Tufton (right) and Audley Shaw, who two years ago
gave Holness a bye for leadership, have recently criticised the party
leader's performance. - File