Thu | Mar 28, 2024

Editorial | Much to be resolved in the PNP

Published:Tuesday | September 24, 2019 | 12:00 AM

Democracy, or the route to the form of government it delivers, is often a very messy and sometimes brutal business, of which the recent election for the presidency of the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) is proof. Backers of the challenger, Peter Bunting, as well as the victor, the incumbent, Peter Phillips, during a long and divisive campaign, hurled hurtful invectives at each other. Dr Phillips’ competence as leader, and one who could inspire Jamaicans to vote for the PNP, was severely questioned.

In the circumstance, it would be the most naïve or guileless who, despite salves of the previous fortnight, would have seriously expected that the wounds had healed and that the party’s annual conference last weekend would be the epitome of unity. The scabs have merely begun to form, which was indirectly acknowledged by Dr Phillips and openly conceded by Mr Bunting.

Indeed, Mr Bunting confirmed that he declined an offer to address Sunday’s open session of the conference because of the unease of some of Dr Phillips’ supporters. “I think it is better we wait until all are welcoming of the initiative, rather than force it too quickly,” Mr Bunting said.

The efficacy of that decision may be debatable. It, however, ought to be considered against the backdrop of Dr Phillips’ decision to beg off from the public session of the conference after his own failed challenge, in 2008, of his predecessor, Portia Simpson Miller, as well as the fact that Mr Bunting was present on Sunday and shared a public embrace with Dr Phillips.

The challenge for the PNP, however, is twofold. One is the short time it will likely have to mend itself before facing a general election, and the other is whether it is in the strategic interest of the PNP for the healing to happen. This raises questions of in whose image the party will be presenting itself to the electorate.

The fact is that Dr Phillips retained his job by only 76 votes, or less than three per cent of the nearly 3,000 delegates who cast ballots. While he maintained the support of the people who control key levers of the PNP, Dr Phillips can’t be unmindful that Mr Bunting excited large swathes of the party’s grass roots and core supporters. This gives Mr Bunting not only leverage for the present, but it firmly establishes him as the front-runner to succeed Dr Phillips.

Short recovery time

With a general election constitutionally due early 2021, but likely to be held next year, Dr Phillips, whatever skills he brings to the exercise, has relatively little time to heal the party. At the same time, a critical calculation of the Bunting camp, despite their declaration of support for the leader, is how much effort they should expend in trying to secure victory for Dr Phillips, which, if successful, would lengthen the odds on Mr Bunting’s leadership prospects. In this scenario, by the time Dr Phillips leaves, Mr Bunting, 59, would probably be facing younger, hungry aspirants.

Dr Phillips’ saluting of Mr Bunting, and his promise to “operate with bias towards none and justice for all”, was clearly intended as a signal to Mr Bunting’s supporters that he intends to operate a Broad Church, in which there is equal space for them. But that raises the question of vision for the party.

During his presidential campaign, Dr Phillips pointedly harked back to the PNP’s democratic socialist roots, clearly in search of new ways of interpreting the party’s core ideology in a 21st-century, globalised, market-oriented world. Mr Bunting, who, like Dr Phillips, was a protégé of the late Michael Manley, who faced the same struggle when he returned to office in 1989 after eight years in opposition, said “absolutely not” when asked if he subscribed to democratic socialism “as it was”. He, however, hasn’t as yet explained that statement.