Gordon Robinson | No better herring

Last week, while essentially categorizing JLP/PNP as no better herring; no better barrel, I accused PNP of trying to lose the next election by prioritising disunity and JLP of the same by trying to neuter the Integrity Commission.

Well, apologies to both parties’ political strategists. I clearly underestimated their talent for and commitment to losing.

PNP first. After publicly salivating over a PNP commissioned Poll showing it leading JLP for the first time in seven years, PNP seemingly harboured no intention of taking “yes” for an answer or learning from the poll findings.

PNP’s most significant learning moment should’ve come from the continued decline in popularity of putative leader, Mark Golding. Any other political organisation about to face a leader-centric electorate would be frantically scrambling to make the leader more politically attractive.

Instead, during a recent rally in East Rural St Andrew, Golding urged PNP supporters who voted in 2011 to vote again for PNP. Then he added these fateful words: “Even some who not alive, you know, if dem can deal with it, no problem.”

Oh dear. Predictably, slumping JLP jumped all over Mark. Imagery of Jamaica’s political past, where over 100% of listed voters “voted”, was resurrected. PNP countered by saying Mark was joking. Then added the standard political defence: he was quoted “out of context.”

KMT.

After three days stubborn resistance to a clamour for amends, at a PNP Press Conference, Mark said of his dead voters gaffe “I unreservedly withdraw and retract those remarks” but didn’t apologise.

I’ve said this before. Mark Golding’s inexperience as a politician should’ve disqualified him as Party Leader. You may dislike Lisa Hanna all you want. Leaders are seldom unanimously beloved. Michael Manley, Seaga, Patterson and Portia Simpson-Miller were all routinely hated by a wide cross-section of political activists and ordinary citizens most of whom never met any of them. Andrew Holness is the latest leader to experience that dubious privilege.

Whatever adverse view you may hold regarding Lisa, you can’t accuse her of political inexperience. She was a political neophyte when Portia parachuted her into South East St. Ann. Since then she has walked through many political fires and emerged victorious. She regularly topped PNP popularity polls. Her only competitor for that spot is the equally popular Damion Crawford who, himself, has survived political gauntlets.

That nonsensical statement would NEVER leave Lisa Hanna’s mouth. Damion Crawford has made his own youthfully exuberant errors of verbosity but I’ll bet that political abomination would never leave his mouth. It would never enter either’s mind.

Contrast Mark Golding’s political history. For years he showed not the slightest inclination for representational politics until inheriting a garrison from Omar Davies. Before he was selected PNP Leader, he’d never been accused of using personal political influence to get another candidate elected. In 2020, the negative effect on PNP candidates by Rise United’s destructive political anxiety was apparent.

Mark Golding’s sole successful foray into competitive politics was the internal contest for PNP leadership for which Rise United assiduously built derricks for Peter Bunting’s benefit since Bunting’s 2019 loss to Peter Phillips. The outcome of that contest was obvious from the outset. National polls and polls of PNP members generally may have given a different impression but astute political watchers read delegates’ tea leaves early.

Like Donald Trump, Mark has PNP by the short and curlies, under current voting rules, but, similar to Trump, his national popularity is lower than the opposing Party Leader.

So, all this, leading up to and including that sensationally stupid dead people voting remark, is entirely Rise United’s fault. It prematurely challenged a PNP Leader who had yet to face a national electorate. This fractured the party and guaranteed a humiliating national defeat in which almost every Rise United candidate outside of garrisons, including Rise United leader, Peter Bunting, lost their seats.

This resulted in Rise United running a back-up candidate against Lisa in a leadership contest she had, organizationally, as much hope of winning as I have of flying backways on a broomstick to the moon.

In my opinion, any one of Lisa Hanna; Damion Crawford; or Peter Bunting would be a better, more politically savvy Party Leader than Mark Golding.

But PNP is what Rise United wanted it to be. So PNP has become a political disaster with a leader appearing to compensate for general awkwardness and inexperience by embellishing political platforms with what sounds like patronising patwa; clumsy dance moves; and bad jokes.

There are some things serious politicians just don’t joke about in public. Dead people voting is top of that list. JLP’s next set of campaign advertisements should be exciting.

But JLP is very much in a photo-finish for political loser of the week with its arrogant, thoughtless, tone-deaf contempt for the Constitution shown during Tuesday’s parliamentary sitting. A bill to amend the Constitution was tabled and passed without consultation with anyone.

But, more importantly, the Bill, allegedly intended to increase two constitutional officers’ retirement age, was pushed through Parliament, faster than Beenie Man could demand keys to his Bimmer, on the last Parliamentary day before a six week recess. D.P.P, one of those constitutional officers, would be forced to retire by law in September. Government’s argument that all other public servant’s retirement age was already raised to sixty-five so this was nothing more than a tidying up exercise is a sound policy argument but NOT sound implementation.

Justice must not only be done. It must also manifestly appear to be done.

Why now? What’s the mad rush now? There’s an even more important, equally sound, policy decision made to subsume the Political Ombudsman’s powers into ECJ. Jamaica has been without a Political Ombudsman for eight months. Elections soon come.

Which sounds more legislatively urgent to you?

(1) Legal framework to transfer the Ombudsman’s powers to ECJ where there’s no existing Ombudsman; or

(2) Backdoor extensions of current incumbent DPP/Auditor General’s tenure when both posts are occupied with structural succession processes?

DPP applied for a five year extension but only three years was granted. DPP said then there were matters to be completed that needed her attention. What has happened since that needs her personal attention possibly for the next seven years (the new provision permits extension to 70)? What has come up that wasn’t contemplated when her five year extension application was partially refused? Why is THAT more urgent than ensuring Ombudsman oversight of political activity in upcoming elections?

On The Morning Agenda, Delroy Chuck said it was “decided it was a Constitutional matter so should be handled by the Ministry of Justice.”

Really? Seriously?

Silly me! I thought there was a Ministry of Legal and Constitutional Affairs under which a Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) was established. CRC was also ignored in this mad rush to extend an about-to-expire tenure.

In my opinion no Constitutional provision should be changed without actual consultation with Opposition and wider society. This isn’t to say Government can’t then use its majority to pass what it’s allowed to pass. I’m saying that should be a last not first resort.

In an 11 page letter to PM and Justice Minister dated July 28, written on ODPP letterhead, Senior Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions Kathy Ann Pyke made similar observations including that for such an amendment to be “effected” the justification “must be compelling and appropriate in the public interest, the interest of justice and the needs of society”. Not only has she detailed that this amendment fails to be so justified she points out the contrary is the situation especially with regard to succession planning.

She writes “currently there are five Senior Deputies, one of whom is a King’s Counsel with over 20 years at the Bar and myself, a former DPP of Montserrat with 31 years.”

In what can only be described as open revolt, Pyke questions the viability, effectiveness and growth of the Office under the incumbent pointing particularly to the “massive haemorrhage caused by the constant departure of prosecutors”. She asserts she’s supported by other prosecutors who wish to remain anonymous “out of fear”. Pyke asks for “an investigation into the operations of the Office of DPP” and a postponement of any further vote on the amendment.

Instead, Government continues to treat the Constitution as its personal toy.

So here we are. Which shall I choose? The Party that can’t agree internally on anything and offers a politically immature leader who publicly jokes about dead people voting? Or the alternative with a unified, arrogant resolve to insist on its right as rulers to do as it likes no matter what?

You have fun picking and supporting one or the other. It’s a hard pass for me.

Peace and Love.

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