I told you so, Mr Holness

Gary Spaulding

In ignoring my advice, the folly of legendary proportions that has long been perpetrated by intractable and foolhardy members of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) over the years has been repeated.

Now the 'fouls' are coming home to roost.

It was in the aftermath of the December 29 general election that I urged Holness in the small column space offered to me to "pick the right team".

In fact, it was in article that was published on January 10, 2012 that I stated: "Andrew Holness has a grand opportunity to activate the renewal process of the Jamaica Labour Party he leads, and to bring an end to the hostility that has marred activities in the Upper House of Parliament by the quality of persons he appoints to the Senate and the shadow Cabinet."

I stated that "Jamaicans have repeatedly signalled, in unambiguous terms, that they are weary of, and disgusted by, the unbridled conflicts and spitefulness that have dominated both chambers of Gordon House.

"Similarly, the populace has frowned on the 'oppose, oppose, oppose' strategies practised by both political parties while in Opposition, at the expense of robust, intellectual debates."

intervention

I suggested then that: "All too frequently those in Opposition appointed to shadow ministerial portfolios are out of their depth because they were appointed by motivations other than their capabilities. Usually, they are only able to make an intervention if and when the symptoms of a scandal or controversy emerge on a subject."

It was also noted that, "tragically, many in both Houses of Parliament prefer to arm themselves with sludge to hurl at members on the other side of the chamber rather than make well-thought-out interventions on the portfolios assigned to them."

It was in this context that I stated that: "Holness must bear in mind that the Senate was established as a review chamber in spite of the fact that its influence has, over the years, been diminished by the appointment of politicians aspiring to enter or return to representational politics."

As I said then, I state now: The upper chamber is mandated to advance party positions on critical and national issues at a level that precludes narrow, partisan positions.

I argued then, as I do now, that the Senate must return to its original status of eminence as the forum that accommodates the articulation of the issues on a broad basis in a way that will drive the growth and development of the country.

I stated: "If the opposition leader is to demonstrate that he is serious about a new approach to politics, of which he has often spoken, he will have to refrain from appointing persons who lost narrowly in the December 29 general election.

"In keeping with his campaign rhetoric, Holness should demonstrate that he possesses the will to appoint to the shadow Cabinet persons who reflect newness of thought.

"By so doing, he will signal to the Jamaican populace that he is ... serious about his campaign advocacy for a new Jamaica in the context of economic development, civil-service reform, education, among other issues, instead of the skewed party positions that have marred Jamaican politics for so long."

That was nigh two years ago.

Arthur Williams had lost a few times in general elections, but he always commanded the respect of his colleagues in the Upper House as a respectful and decorous member, not given to the cheap political gimmickry that emanates from overly ambitious and eager aspirants to the Lower House.

The loquacious Dr Christopher Tufton and Robert Montague, though "bright", were a far different cry from Williams. They needed to make their mark to reposition themselves for a seat in the Lower House.

The Upper House would be cheapened if it were to become the launching pad for their renewed political campaigns.

To be honest, this advice to Andrew Holness is hardly original. It formed the core of a principle advanced by former Prime Minister Percival Noel James Patterson in the aftermath of his first general election victory to which he led the People's National Party (PNP) in 1993.

Patterson warned then that PNP "losers" in general elections would not be rewarded with a place in the Senate.

People like Burchell Whiteman and A.J. Nicholson were appointed to the Senate after their stints in the House of Representatives.

True to Patterson's word, these two men never lost their seats, but merely eased out of representational politics to be 'promoted' to the decorous upper chamber that facilitates more intellectual debates and that generally transcends petty party positions.

This was a far cry from the practice in the JLP. In 1989, when Joan Gordon-Webley lost her East Rural St Andrew seat, she was still a close ally of then JLP leader Edward Seaga and was appointed to the Senate.

conundrum

But during that electoral tenure, the relationship soured and Seaga was faced with same conundrum that Holness was in 2013.

The same could be said for the late Hugh Dawes, who was appointed to the Senate by Seaga after being defeated in the 1989 general election.

Unable to wrest the seat from PNP stalwart, the late Sydney Pagon, in his bid to become member of parliament for North Eastern St Elizabeth, he again failed in his quest for a seat in 1993 when he challenged Ben Clare in Western Hanover.

But Dawes, who was appointed an opposition senator, would go nowhere even when the calls in the public domain became thunderous in the mid-1990s after he became a member of the Western Gang of Eleven which had openly challenged Seaga's leadership and defected to help Bruce Golding form the National Democratic Movement (NDM).

Other 'losers' appointed by Seaga to the Senate included the venerable political stalwart Anthony Johnson, after he lost the stranglehold on the North East St Catherine constituency to Phyllis Mitchell.

But like Whiteman and Nicholson, Johnson would serve with distinction as he was clearly done with the dogfights supposedly required in representational politics when he was appointed to the Upper House.

In the final analysis, I sense that the JLP leadership has always held a different view, as I was told by a senior stalwart of the JLP that members of the Senate are appointed by the governor general on the recommendation of the prime minister and leader of the Opposition.

The Holness team interprets that to mean that the governor general, therefore, has no discretion in the appointment.

They posit that: "The wish of the prime minister or opposition leader must be respected when it comes to the removal of a senator.

They argued that it was in this context that a Gleaner editorial on November 17, 1963 - 50 years ago - suggested a general constitutional principle: That every member of the Senate is a party man, therein the final analysis to obey the party decision to clear out and make way for others.

Gary Spaulding is a political affairs journalist and winner of the 2012-13 Morris Cargill Award for Opinion Journalism. Email feedback to columns@ gleanerjm.com and gary.spaulding@gleanerjm.com.