http://jamaica-gleaner.com/gleaner/20031116/cleisure/cleisure4.html

“The dinner of understanding”

Once there was a party which lost 4 straight general elections and was out of power for 18 years. A new leader had to be chosen and the two front runners were A and B. The government was disliked and if the party chose the more popular A it would likely win the next election, though it might also win under B. But voters would see an open fight between A and B as a sign of continuing disunity and might then re-elect the government. So A and B had a dinner meeting. A said that if B stepped aside and the party won he would put B in charge of the economy and then retire after a certain period so that B could get his chance to be leader. B agreed – half a loaf and a promise of a full one later was better than all of nothing. So A became leader and in the next election the party won a massive victory.

“No to the popular choice”

Once there was a party which lost consecutive general elections. ‘Maybe the problem is our leader’ some party members said. So they asked the people who the party leader should be and the people cried ‘the popular choice’. But some party members did not like ‘the popular choice’ and so he was not chosen. Now the government had become very unpopular. But the people were even more upset with the opposition party and cried ‘Why should we vote for a party which will not choose the leader we want?’ So despite being disliked the governing party was poised to win once more.

The ‘dinner of understanding’ party is of course the British Labour Party. A and B are Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who were the clear candidates to become Labour leader when John Smith died suddenly. Though Labour was ahead in the polls both realized that an open fight would prove to many that Labour could not be trusted to run the country. So they had a famous ‘dinner of understanding’. Only they know the details, but most feel Blair promised Brown that the chancellorship of the exchequer if Labour won and also that he Blair would retire after 10 years or so and give Brown his chance. Together they have been unbeatable, twice crushing the Conservatives.

The ‘no to the popular choice’ party is the British Conservative Party. In its leadership race last year between Ken Clarke and Ian Duncan Smith polls showed Clarke to be the public’s overwhelming choice. Yet party members chose Smith. Now the Iraq war and health care worries have made Tony Blair’s Labour Party very unpopular. But Smith was even more so, and the Conservatives recently got rid of him. Yet despite polls showing that with Ken Clarke as leader the Conservatives had a good chance of winning the next election, party insiders chose Michael Howard as new leader. Though an improvement on Smith, he still lacks support in voter polls and Labour is favoured to win again.

To outsiders politics seems simple - give the people what they want and you win. But if even the oldest and most successful party ever known can act against its own self-interest – well clearly in politics blind emotion often trumps clear-sighted reason. Yet British Labour’s example shows that common sense can prevail over ego.

Now whatever the immediate future Edward Seaga cannot stay leader of the Jamaica Labour Party forever, and Bruce Golding and Audley Shaw are clearly the two leading candidates to succeed him. But which of the above two paths will the JLP take?

Polls show Golding to be the public’s choice. And if Bruce Golding became the new JLP leader - or was even positioned as heir apparent while Seaga promised to step down soon – it would be difficult to envision Labour losing the next election. On the other hand while Audley Shaw is likeable and brave, many question his self-control and are not sure they trust him to control the nation’s destiny.

In my view Golding and Shaw made a great team in last year’s debates, with Golding supplying serious gravitas and Shaw a warm common touch. Separately both have serious deficiencies which the PNP might successfully exploit. But if they teamed like Blair and Brown the JLP would be heavy favourite to crush the PNP.

With its support having dropped considerably since losing the June local elections this government is very unpopular. Even worse for the PNP, most young Jamaicans are ‘tired fi see dem face’. As a young lady said to me ‘I want a change. From I know myself is the same PNP every time. I just want to experience living under a different government from this one.’

If an election had been held last month even with Eddie Seaga as leader the JLP would have won handily. But nothing is so bitter as an electorate not given what they demand. And polls consistently show that people want Bruce Golding to lead the JLP, if not now then in the near future. And if he is defeated in the JLP chairman race a vengeful voter backlash is likely.

Right now with a fiscal crisis looming it seems impossible that the PNP could win again. Yet financial discipline coupled with tourism growth and a remittance boost from a recovering US could give Jamaica a healthy economy next year. Jamaica may indeed prove a slow but steady tortoise that reaches its objectives while former ‘miracle economy’ hares like Argentina and the Dominican Republic have fallen into chaos.

Facing a unified JLP with a lot of new faces and Bruce Golding as leader the PNP would probably struggle to win 10 seats. But since in my view heavily unbalanced parliaments are unhealthy for a country, another self-inflicted JLP mess might curiously benefit Jamaica in the long run. Let’s see what happens.

changkob@hotmail.com