Politics in Jamaica seems to have simmered down somewhat since the last general elections held in March of this year, when the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), led by Mr Andrew Holness defeated the People’s National Party (PNP) led by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller with a narrow margin of 32 seats to the PNP’s 31 and Holness remained Prime Minister of the country. Between December 2011 and March of this year the PNP had governed with a majority of 41 seats to the Jamaica Labour Party’s 21, and thus seemed to have lost enough of the party’s previous complement of seats to indicate substantial popular dissatisfaction with her period of governance.
Since then, the political atmosphere had been characterized by a degree of turbulence within the PNP, with certain significant personalities suggesting that she should cede the leadership of the party at this point to a new leader given the extent to which the JLP had been able to make substantial political ground. And further, there developed between then, and the PNP’s Annual Conference in September of this year, a persistent demand by some of the younger personalities of the party that she should consider yielding the leadership to “new blood”, comparable to the relatively younger Andrew Holness who seemed to have definitively improved his political influence and presence since the previous general elections.
It seems clear that the PNP supporters of a new leadership were indicating that defeat, under Simpson Miller’s leadership had been substantial, indicating that under her tenure the party had not only lost substantial ground, but that since the elections she was indicating little capacity to establish a substantial challenge to Prime Minister Holness and his relatively young cadre of Ministers. And in addition, beneath the wave of anti-Simpson sentiment, there seemed to be an assertion, however verbally clothed, that the leader had not shown the capacity to cope intellectually with the JLP’s younger and intellectually aggressive leadership.
The period prior to the PNP’s Annual Conference of Delegates became the base for a sorting out of the various contentions about the party’s leadership, with a former party General Secretary, Peter Bunting seeming to lead the challenge for a change of leadership. And in that regard he seemed to be asserting himself as a replacement for Simpson Miller.
From all appearances the attacks against Simpson Miller, seemed to be based on the intellectual competence of a new young guard, its chief leader being Bunting. He seemed to be giving an indication of widening a divide that has always been evident, though often shielded, between representatives of what has been referred to as the intellectual cadres of the party, vis-a vis the more working class and senior self-developed membership, Simpson Miller seeming to be placed in the latter category.
It would appear to have taken the active intervention of the former party leader, Prime Minister and mentor of the Party, P.J. Patterson, to ensure that what was beginning to look like a class divide did not damage a party now finding itself in opposition.
With the obvious experience of the party’s social character, and with the distinction of having led the party in recent years without the experience of defeat, Patterson, no doubt undertaking both hidden and open interventions sought to warn the party, and certainly the opponents of Simpson Miller against “undermining the integrity of the party” even while seeking its renewal, and “trying to grab the baton too early”, at the risk of polarizing the party and possibly being disqualified, even while he asserted that there is no illegitimacy in asserting a claim.
The reclaiming of the government by the Jamaica Labour Party, itself now having essentially organized its leadership ranks with individuals of both working and middle, in virtual similarity to the PNP, appears to have pressed the young cadres to recognize that the JLP is now able to successfully contest with the PNP in the parties’ relative abilities to recruit members to the leadership of the party on a more equal basis with the PNP than has been the case in the past.
It seems to be the case that the years of leadership of Edward Seaga, as party leader and Prime Minister has put the parties on a relatively more equal footing in terms of recruitment of membership than was the case in the past, even while the two parties, JLP and PNP, maintain their active connections with the leading trades unions in the country, the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union and the National Workers Union.
In that context, it would appear that the social strata available for recruitment by the parties has become more equitably available, this being a more positive situation for the JLP than in the past, thus creating a relative class equalization between them; and from the JLP’s perspective permitting a wider appeal to the middle classes than hitherto.
The outcome of the PNP’s annual political convention suggests a temporary truce within the party, but with a concern among certain elements of the party that Simpson Miller’s continued leadership can lead to a shift in the JLP’s favour in terms of public attraction. Patterson has tried to advise that what is necessary is what he has referred to as a “renewal of party”, while advising that he himself is “only a phone call away”.
Looking against a larger background beyond the political play between the two parties, Jamaican public opinion would seem to indicate that its main concern remains a recovery from its deep and prolonged economic recession, during which the country, whether under JLP or PNP, has had to undertake what, some people believe, to have been an overly long period of travail under the International Monetary Fund.
Jamaica’s voting population itself seems, in terms of the narrow seat margin between the parties, to have come to understand that the real political prize is, after the long period of restraint since 1976, that of regaining of the strength of the country’s economy, and consequently, gaining a greater autonomy over the country’s affairs than has been the case for the now prolonged period of economic restraint since 1976-77.
This seems to be the lesson of the narrow political margin (32 seats to 31) granted the parties in the general elections. Neither one seems better, more capable, than the other. And after all, the voter turnout was 47.2%.
