Prince Andrew or Machiavelli's Prince?

Ian Boyne

One thing is crystal clear - even to the combatants - in all this whirlwind of controversy and confusion surrounding the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP): The perception of the party as neurotically divisive and factious is being reinforced in the aftermath of the leadership election. The brand is suffering increased damage with every passing day.

Holness was dead right in what he told the delegates on Sunday: "What I have detected is that the public is becoming increasingly frustrated with these internal wrangling ... . They don't want the soap opera." And it got worse since he said that on Sunday. JLP leaders are back in court again to fight it out. What's new with the JLP?

Even Bobby Montague, who posed for the cameras after the election results, saying to the People's National Party (PNP), "Call the elections. I dare you. Call it," is now fighting for his own political life. Why can't these people get their act together and settle down? Are they under a curse or something? Are they destined to cuss and fight all the days of their lives? Are they irredeemable?

The one indisputable fact is that the JLP is the loser in all this civil (?) war in the party. But what is not as clear is whether my colleague Emily Crooks is right that Andrew Holness' decision to ask for the resignation of all senators is as unpopular as she thinks. I am picking up that a number of people are saying that Holness has every right to 'puddung him foot' and get rid of all those who said nasty things about him and who are "intent on undermining him". People on the street are saying, "What dem expect? Them fight 'gainst the man and lose and dem still waan position? After the man nuh fool."

WATCH YOUR BACK

I have heard many people say that mushy idealism aside, in the real world - not in the ivory tower of the media and civil society - you have to watch your back and it is suicidal to appoint enemies in positions where they can take your head. The Observer article on Thursday, 'Online readers bash Emily Crooks for position on Holness' mirrors views I myself have been picking up. Those views are represented well by dorlanfrancis in his posting.

Dismissing Emily's and other people's outrage over Holness first demanding and then using undated resignation letters to get rid of Arthur Williams and Chris Tufton, he wrote: "This is ... goody-two-shoes crap ... . This is the kind of pious nonsense which passes for objectivism in Jamaica. How does Ms Crooks know that greater admiration for Mr Holness has not developed? Is she aware that there are people who hate when the tail wags the dog? What she should be condemning is the situation where people challenge a leader and, after being soundly beaten, expect to retain the position they had."

Another writer, Rakeem, is clear: "Life simple, if you have people around you who don't support you, get rid of them." Even the esteemed Gleaner stunned many people on Monday when it published a forthright editorial titled 'Mr Holness right on Senate resignations'. Unashamedly citing the Eric Williams principle of undated resignations - once mentioned with scorn and derision in the region - The Gleaner says, "Having been challenged and prevailing, Mr Holness quite rightly expected that he would be given a free hand to shape the JLP ... . Not inappropriately, in our view, Mr Holness signalled that he would welcome the resignations en bloc of the eight senators he caused to be appointed."

The Gleaner charges that "there are persons in the Jamaica Labour Party seemingly intent on expropriating the mandate Mr Holness won a week ago". Wow! Those are strong, fighting words! The Observer was even more strident in taking the opposite position. The Observer said Holness' action of using the undated resignations

letters to oust the senators who did not support him was an "underhanded action ... authored in insecurity and near cowardice". Holness is now "captive of the opportunistic old guard", while most of "the younger, more energetic leaders have rejected him and his transformational leadership label".

In the chattering classes and the commentariat, Holness has been getting a severe beating. But a new piece of information - or allegation - has come out since Wednesday night and repeated to me personally by the opposition leader in a face-to-face, off-the-record meeting I had with him last Thursday as my part of my research for this piece. (I have been speaking to both sides in this dispute to ensure fairness, balance and a solid knowledge base.)

Holness denies Arthur Williams' claim that those undated resignation letters were in any way tied to a vote on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). I happen to have a high regard for both Andrew and Arthur, so I don't know whose memory is failing him. But what I do know is that in the light of this discrepancy, we can't be definitive. Arthur has admitted to drafting the letters for Holness (He was chief of staff in the opposition leader's office.) Holness goes further: It was Arthur's idea of maintaining unity after he (Holness) had appointed him leader of opposition business in the Senate.

The JLP has a history of people appointed to the Senate going to another party - the National Democratic Movement - or otherwise declaring their independence. With that weight of history, Holness and other senators - including Arthur - were concerned that this could happen again. The undated letter of resignation, plus the one to the governor general authorising its use whenever the opposition leader deems fit, was the mechanism to deal with this threat.

I have the Holness affidavit which says Arthur Williams, an attorney, advised him that that action was constitutional. Well, Arthur seems to have changed his mind, judging by affidavit, which I have. In his affidavit, the now more enlightened attorney notes that: "Section 137 of the Constitution provides that a person appointed to any constitutional office may resign from that office by writing under his hand addressed to the person by whom he or she was appointed and the resignation takes effect when it is received by the appointing person. These letters would, therefore, be inconsistent with this scheme in that important section ... ."

NOT CONSISTENT

He goes on to say the letters are "not consistent with the constitutional scheme in that they contemplate an interval between the composition and submission".

Then Arthur goes on to state that "these letters were used by the leader of the Opposition for a purpose other than for which they were written were given ... ". Now, first, there is no documentary evidence that these letters were drafted with any single issue in mind. I am not swearing that it is Holness' memory which is failing him. I am simply stating a fact: There is no written proof anywhere that I am aware of which ties those letters to the CCJ. Therefore, I can't see how it is rational to raise that issue in an affidavit. You can admit you were part of a conspiracy against the Constitution and Lady Justice, which is blind, should rule, letting the chips fall where they may.

I have the greatest of respect for Arthur Williams. I have always found him to be such a gentleman, so affable, such a decent human being. In fact, one of the main reasons I asked to speak to the opposition leader was to find out why he would go after Arthur, who, true to his non-combative, placid nature, did not declare his hand for anyone or utter one word during that election campaign. That behaviour was vintage Arthur Williams - the Burchell Whiteman of the JLP. Andrew accepted my overall positive assessment of Arthur and did not express any bitterness towards him.

GOOD MAN WITH A GOOD HEART

Arthur Williams is a good man with a good heart. But I think he blundered with this court action strategically. Any victory he gains in the court would be pyrrhic. Even if he succeeds in completing his term in office - which is very unlikely - he would most certainly have squandered any chance of coming back if the JLP were to win the next election. But perhaps, he wants to stand up for a principle. Fine, if that is all he wants.

My own view, which I told Andrew Holness to his face, is that he should have found a way to reassure Arthur and Chris of a viable political future once they decide to accept his mandate. They are valuable men to the Labour Party. Andrew made one statement: "You can quote me on this." And that was that "there is no private entitlement to a seat in the Senate". It is not a constitutional right of any individual. It the prerogative of a political leader to appoint to the Senate. Let's face it: Forget the mumbo jumbo about independence. People serve in the Senate at the pleasure of the prime minister and opposition leader.

The Opposition is guaranteed eight seats and the Government, 13, so the Constitution implicitly recognises political entities. Yes, senators will sometimes go against their parties in some matters, but on the issues determined by their party leaders and whips as important, they vote party. All this talk about 'conscience' is just that - talk. They generally follow the party line where it really matters. Many believe that because Andrew lost confidence in Tufton and Williams, the decent thing for them to have done was to resign.

My view is that Andrew should not have asked for any resignations and should not have forced it by sending those unsigned letters. He has lost support from some significant quarters. That support is important for a transformational leader. Andrew cannot afford to lose civil society. Plus, he needs to know he has a party to unite. And that the buck starts and stops with him. Yes, he can be tough and decisive. He can give some choice positions to people loyal to him. But he must also be seen as magnanimous, not petty and vindictive. I remind you, Opposition Leader, perception is reality.

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