Kings House Expense

I must write on an issue that has been making headlines lately and it has to do with the 40 million dollar allocation that has been given to the Office of the Governor-General for the purpose of installing a new elevator in the building and also for the purchase of a new vehicle and the backlash it has received particularly on social media.

Let me start out by point out that I do support some of the comments made regarding the nature of the expense, $40 million is an exorbitant sum and quite frankly  I must question whether or not there was a better way this money could have been allocated, for example the state of hospitals can be described as deplorable, several educational institutions are in dire need of an upgrade and not to mention the far way such a sum could go in dealing with any of these, or at the very least in part. And given the public outcry I do believe that the government should reconsider this proposal, after all its not as if government expenditure hasn’t been adjustment in years before now, so yes they can revisit that one or try to find a way to cut cost in order to make it more economical.

That said, while I do agree with those who are not in favour of the expense. There are some only too quick the use the opportunity to promote a republican agenda, therefore the air must be cleared as to some of the misinformation out there. First of all is the notion that the getting rid of the Governor-General would get rid of that expense in the budget is totally and utterly false. In fact if the Governor-General were to be gotten rid of tomorrow then a President would immediately take his place as head of state and the expense would remain either the same or it would be increased. There is statistical data that shows this, for example the President of Trinidad earns US $ 114, 224 per annum, whereas in Jamaica, the Governor-General cost per annum is US $ 58,159. Another example can be drawn between the cases of Haiti and Barbados, whereas in Haiti, the poorest country in the hemisphere their president has a salary of US$60,000 per annum, the Governor general of the much wealthier Barbados earns US$ 49,214.50 per annum. What exactly is the point I’m trying to drill here, contrary to popular belief there is actually no evidence to point to the supposition that a presidency would be cheaper, in fact what the researchable data does show is that the governor general costs far less to maintain than it would be under a president.

Another area of misinformation that must be addressed is the matter of the official residence. It has been assumed by some that if the Crown were gotten rid of, the King’s House would either be demolished or the property could be developed into a real estate area or factory, museum or whatever else one can dream of. This supposition is based on wishful thinking however not reality, in fact the most likely outcome would be the name of the building would be changed to reflect the new status quo and the property itself would continue to serve as the seat of highest office in the land. Again there is a precedent to support this claim. For example in India, Rashtrapati Bhavan which used to serve as the residence of the Viceroy of British India has since 1950 been the residence of the President of modern India.  Similarly Áras an Uachtaráin which now serves as the palace of the President of the Irish Republic used to be the Viceregal Lodge of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland under British rule. And these are not isolated cases either instead this has been tradition in many Commonwealth countries where the palace of the former royal representative has been converted to a presidential palace and in most of these cases, their functions and operations continue almost exactly as they did before, especially in cases where the former governor general was himself appointed as the new President. This then serves as overwhelming evidence to prove that any notion that becoming a republic would cause King’s House to scale down its cost and operations is actually a fallacy, rooted in supposition and not fact.

And while on the matter of the presidential residence lets discuss the nature of the presidency itself where there it is commonly thought that becoming a republic would cause us to move to a US styled presidential model, where the Prime Minister himself would assume the presidency thus absorbing the cost. While this has been done in some Commonwealth states, there again is no evidence to prove that it will happen here. Truthfully every proposal that is made on this constitutional change is based on the Westminster system where the head of state and head of government remain as separate offices. In other words then, there is no real suggestion to have an executive presidency but rather a ceremonial one, that has been the position taken by most republican proponents who really don’t have an issue with a parliamentary form of government only with the Queen’s name being on it, in short they wish to have all the benefits of a constitutional monarchy without having an actual monarchy.

Speaking of monarchy, it grieves me to see the level of ignorance of what the constitution actually says. Nowhere in our laws does it state that governor general is appointed by the British government, which would be a gross violation of the constitution and the Jamaica Independence Act. The Governor General of Jamaica is not and has never been an agent of the United Kingdom, the law makes it perfectly plain that only the Government of Jamaica can advise a Queen on the appointment of a Governor General and only they can advise her to dismiss one. Nor can Her Majesty take it upon herself to appoint a representative in a unilateral manner since to do would be a violation of her own coronation oath to govern according to established laws and customs. The reason for this misconception is of course a lack of understanding on the concept of the Commonwealth Realms, where more than one sovereign state agree to share the same monarch and adopt common succession rules. This shared monarchy is not and should be confused with colonial subjugation since any of states can opt out of the arrangement and any changes to the arrangement has to mutually agreed upon by all member states as was seen in 2011 Perth Agreement where the rules on succession could not be changed unless all the countries approved the proposed changes. There is no legal or constitutional arrangement for the governor general to answer to the British authorities, I would have thought the fact that he was a born and bred citizen of Jamaica would have made this fact painfully obvious to all.

To conclude, I’ll reiterate my own opposition to the planned spending increases at King’s House and I still stand in support of those who propose that the funds be diverted to more salient causes. However unlike some I would rather vent my displeasure that those who proposed this spending in the first place rather (i.e. the finance ministry and its technocrats), rather than confuse the issue by ranting about how we “need a president now”. Quite frankly given what I see happening in the world’s most famous presidential office now, the idea that Jamaica could develop into such a system scares me to no end, and I would therefore urge that any discussion on this going forward are grounded in empirical facts and not in mere emotional tirades .

No CCJ without referendum

I guess regular readers of the Jamaican Tory have been wondering, where I have been for over half a year now and more importantly what could have been so urgent to call their favourite blogger back into action after all this time. For those who have been following the news, it is no secret that the Jamaican Parliament is preparing to vote on the long stinging issue of the final court of appeal. Chapter VII of Jamaica’s constitution states that final judicial authority is rest with the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London which also serves as a final court for several other Commonwealth countries. This arrangement has not seated well with several segments of the political elite who wish to remove this part of our constitution and replace the court with something more local.

          

 Ironically the alternative is not truly local at all but instead the dissenters prefer to turn to the Trinidad based Caribbean Court of Justice which was set up via the 2005 Revised Treaty of Chagaramus (RTC). The court already has primary jurisdiction over matters relating to the RTC and other matters relating to other internal CARICOM affairs. It also serves as the final court for CARICOM states such as Belize, Barbados and Guyana whilst other countries are considering joining the courts appellate jurisdiction.

         

I know what I’m going to say next will shock many of my readers but personally speaking I have no real problem with establishing the CCJ as the final court of appeal in Jamaica providing the proper channels are followed. I have listened to arguments both for and against the removal of the JCPC and so have come to this stance. Having the CCJ as a final court would give us better access to the final court of jurisdiction as it would cost individuals far less to travel to Port of Spain for appeals as opposed to travelling to London. 2. Should all CARICOM states accept the CCJ it would bind us even closer as a regional unit which was always the aim of CARICOM and especially the CSME. 3.  As a member of CARICOM member, Jamaica is already obliged to contribute to the upkeep of the CSME, so why not make use of it given that we still have to pay for it in any case. 4. It is no secret the JCPC would much prefer to lessen the appeals coming to them from Commonwealth (especially Caribbean) states, they have said as much in the past, so in other words it’s really a case of no love lost should we leave.

 

Regardless of all said above, it is totally unacceptable for any government that decides that it’s going to run roughshod over the people and do as it likes without following the proper procedure, this is precisely what the People’s National Party is trying to do by insisting that a two-thirds majority vote in Parliament  is enough pass such a law. How convenient for them to come up with this idea, knowing perfectly well that they already hold such a majority in both House and Senate. As Andrew Holness and the Jamaican Labour Party have constantly pointed out (and rightly so) is that the people should be ones to decide for themselves what they want in a referendum. The constitution has always firmly upheld that it is right of the Queen’s subjects of appeal to their Sovereign and to have judgements rendered on the Queen’s behalf by the Lords of Her Majesty’s Council. How dare any government presume to take away that right without consulting the people who will be affected by this? I have heard arguments for and against the JCPC or CCJ and also for and against the referendum. Whilst I take some of the arguments for removing the Privy Council into consideration, nobody has ever been able to convince me as to why the people shouldn’t have a say in the matter, and to imagine that this is the same PNP that campaigned on the notion of “People Power”, only goes to show what a bunch of hypocrites they are.

            

And while on the topic of hypocrisy, I cannot help but wonder if this is what my regular readers would think of me, given that I’m well known to be a monarchist and have proudly reiterated that fact time and again. Contrary to popular opinion, removal of the JCPC is not and has never been akin to republicanism. In fact moving the CCJ might well serve to strengthen the monarchy’s position rather than weaken it. Republicans have always loved to hearken on the matter of judicial sovereignty as an excuse to get rid of the monarchy, having a judicial authority vested in the CCJ whilst retaining the monarchical form of government will then show that such a system can work and so prove republicans for the liars that they truly are as has been the case in Belize and Barbados where the CCJ serves of the final court of appeal yet republican sentiment is significantly weak on the flip side of the coin there is Dominica and Trinidad (yes you read that right, the very same Trinidad which is the headquarters of the CCJ) both of which have been republics since the 1970s and yet still continue to appeal to the Privy Council.

In closing I have but several questions to ask of those who support the PNP’s position “ Why keep stalling on the referendum?”, If they were so confident that what they are doing was truly in  the people’s best interest, then why not just get the referendum over and done with? “What are they so afraid of?” “Is it that they have so little faith in Jamaicans to choose their own destinies?” Parliament is supposed to our representatives not our overlords and therefore they have absolutely no right to make any such changes to our constitution without seeking the approval of the will of the people. 

Religious vs Secular morality

It’s been a while since last I wrote but as of late an issue came to light that I feel I must comment on, as it regards to secular interference into the affairs of the Church, a few weeks ago a newspaper story broke out that students at the Northern Caribbean University in Mandeville, Jamaica, in institution owned and operated by the Seventh Day Adventist Church were suspended after performing a cheer-leading ritual that depicted scenes that look to promote homosexual lifestyle, it also subsequently reported that said students were also barred from participation in any further activities during their remaining time at the institution due to their lack of regard for the student code of conduct as set forth by the university which they say are guided by the principles of the Church itself.

                

However I’m not here to take about the action taken by the university but rather the public reaction to the university’s action. I’m amazed to see the amount of public outcry that erupted as liberals wasted no time vilifying both the University and the Church that owns it, some of the more common descriptions are “travesty of justice”,  “ridiculous”, “outrageous” and these were only the nicer terms that they used. Some even went as far as to claim that the university is  imposing it’s values on it’s students and call their actions a violation of the principles of “separation of church and state” while accusing the Adventist Church of not holding up the ideals of religious liberty. I cannot help but wonder how ridiculous people can get with these absurd comments, it is a known fact that the Adventist Church has always been a keen supporter of the principles of religious liberty in whatever country they are situated, and in a country like Jamaica where the influence remains every strong, they are among the loudest voices to raise the alarm whenever the concept of religious liberty seem to be under threat. As for separation of Church and State, that claim is just as unfounded seeing as the University is owned  and funded by the Church and not the State, therefore it’s only natural that Adventist principles and practices should take precedence in a Church-run institution, that principle applies not only for Adventist but also for the Catholics, Anglicans, Baptist or any other religious body that operates a similar institution, the University is run by the Church and is not publicly owned thus separation of Church and State does not apply.

               

I must make note of a newspaper article written by the professor from another university concerning the issue, in her writings this professor (who shall remain nameless)  actually goes as far as to claim that the Church is “suffering from performance anxiety and wrestling with alternate sexuality” . To illustrate her stance, she raises the point where the church held a summit in South Africa in order to address the problem, she was careful to point out that No- Known LGBT Adventist were invited to attend, I wonder if it ever occurred to the professor that no such persons were invited because they are not recognized by the Church? The last time I checked, being affiliated with the LGBT community was enough to warrant excommunication (or disfellowshipping) within the ranks of the Church and seeing as only members in good standing would be invited to attend such a conference, then it’s highly unlikely that any member of the LGBT community would warrant an invitation. She goes to call the Church’s view one-sided and prejudiced, she ended by  thesis by calling on the Church to be more tolerant and open to the idea of allowing LGBT persons to join its ranks.

             

As I read through the responses of persons to the incident at NCU particular that of Professor (Nameless), I cannot help but notice that all the criticisms are coming from outsiders who preted to be enlightened and objective but in truth have a more sinister agenda, it leads me to wonder what right do these people have to go interfering internal business of the Church especially since they themselves most certainly aren't members, not with views like that. What I find awfully odd about secularist is that they love to complain about how churches  likes to impose it’s views on other people, yet  they themselves are guilty of the exact same thing by trying to get involved in the affairs of Churches. I mean seriously? To suggest that the Church should start accepting gay persons into it’s ranks? She might as well suggest that the Church disband altogether. Instruction on marriage and family life as well as guidelines on Christian behaviour are among the core beliefs of this faith, any change whatsoever in such a fundamental teaching will shake the very foundations of the church itself and  most certainly not go over very well with most traditionalist Adventist, if any Adventist at all.  The Seventh Day Adventist Church was founded upon core principles and those who wish to join must either abide by the rules or make their exit, the no outsider has any business telling the Church what rules it can keep and which it should discard, the Church’s principle should by guided solely by Biblical principles as well as rules set out in it’s own canon law, and not by the whims of some liberal who feels that having the title of “Professor” automatically makes her a know it all.

                             

I applaud the church for taking the stand that it took and fully support the decision of the university to stand it’s ground and not be swayed from outside pressure by those who have neither the best interest of the church or the best interest of the university at heart, in a country and a world over run by liberals and cultural Marxist, it’s good to see the Seventh Day Adventist church raise the standard high, standing for good spiritual morals and upholding traditionalist family values.

Compulsory Voting?? Bad Idea

It’s been a while since I last made a post and maybe some of my readers are wondering why is it that the Jamaican Tory seems to have fallen off the grid, well the fact is that I’m back now and ready to issue the first post of 2013, which also happens to be the 50^th post in this Jamaican Tory series . So many things have taken place in my absence, so many incidents I can write on but for now I’ll choose something very close to home.

It concerns some rather controversial comments made by a prominent member of parliament Everald Warmington from South West St Catherine, a rather eccentric character known for his wit and flamboyant style but is who also a true conservative and one of the few members of the present parliament who has spoken up in support of the monarchy and it’s place in our constitution, coming in confrontation with certain members of the political left in order to get his point across. A man some (particularly the left) would consider to be highhanded, obnoxious and even downright rude but whom I  have come to have respect for due to his conservative views and uncompromising stance even if his style of doing so is a bit unorthodox, he seems to have his head on straight, which is why it gives me no great pleasure to have to criticize him now.

                                

In a speech made to a group of party supporters, he was reported to have said that "If you don't vote, you don't count," basically telling his constituents that those who refuse to exercise their constitutional right to vote, should not expect to receive any forms of aid from his constituency office. Naturally these comments sent shock waves across the island, although it is common knowledge that politicians are hardly the most respected people in Jamaica, few would dream that an MP would be brazen enough to make such a statement on national television (in truth a number of politicians have already adopting this practice of having little dealings or contacts with those who are no aligned to them or their party, even though they publicly deny it). Everyone from the media to various civil society groups wasted no time in villanising Warmington for his comments and to be frank I can’t say I’m shocked and I doubt he is either, it’s not the first time he’s been on the receiving end of such angry public backlash for what is considered to be extremely offensive language which some even goes as far as to say displays his contempt for the people that he is sworn to serve as member of parliament.

However when the dust settles and all the trash talk is over, Warmington’s comments does leave room for the nation to debate a very important issue, should compulsory voting be imposed in Jamaica or not?, some countries already have this e.g. Australia, Argentina, Singapore, Peru and a few others, it’s not a whole lot but still there is precedent for it.

                                                    

                                     

This year 2014, will mark the 70^th anniversary that universal adult suffrage was granted in this country and anyone aware of our history will know perfectly well the hard struggles that our ancestors had to go through in order to obtain the right to elect their representatives in free and fair elections, a right which they finally won on October 27, 1944 when His Majesty King George VI gave his royal assent to the new constitution. This Order in Council saw  the hosting of the first democratic elections in on December 12 of that same year where every adult subject of the Crown in Jamaica was entitled to a vote. In his tirade Warmington charged that those who refuse to vote are in fact refusing to take any interest in the affairs of the nation and as such should not be entitled to any form of benefits for their lack of participation, he also called their actions as being disrespectful to those who gave their blood, sweat and tears to earn a right that many people now take for granted .

                                            

While I do sympathize with Warmington’s point of view, I can hardly say that I agree,  the truth  is that, while his comments may have triggered the calls for a discussion on compulsory voting, I seriously doubt it will go past the discussion change. If the history of Jamaica is anything to go by then it’s safe to say, the people will never accept such an imposition from the government but at the same time nor will they stand for any government that seeks to deny them the right of this franchise, Jamaicans love their freedom of choice it's just who we are as a people, in fact the latest Freedom in the world index ranks Jamaica and its Caribbean Commonwealth partners rather highly on the freedom index, far above any other group of nations in the developing world and that’s saying something.  People nowadays are getting rather disillusioned with the whole political process and comments like those uttered by Mr. Warmington only serves to heighten the cynicism among an already disgruntled population, a call for compulsory voting at this time is most certainly not a good idea, The Jamaican People simple will not stand for it. 

No such thing as a "Jamaican Halloween"

Today is the 31^ST of October and this say is known by many different names, Halloween, All Hallows Eve, Samhain among several others. The Halloween festival is known for several things including trick or treat, a tradition normally carried out by children and in some cases the young at heart,  lighting of bonfires, playing of pranks, visiting of haunted houses, dressing up in all manner of costumes, some of them rather bizarre, the hosting of Halloween theme parties and of course the most famous of Halloween  traditions, the Jack-O-Lanterns carved out from hollow pumpkins.

                              

 The Origins of this festival remains rather obscure, some say that it is an all Christian festival that is celebrated the day before the traditional Catholic Festival known as all souls day, November 1, others however reject this idea, pointing out its pagan origin, such people decry all Halloween celebrations as being part of a satanic culture, with the view that nobody who calls himself a Christian should take part in Halloween. Regardless of your view on the matter, it is certainly not the intention Jamaican Tory to express his own view on the matter one way or another, as that is not the subject of the debate here.

                     

I have my own reason for not taking any part in any such Halloween celebrations, simply put it is totally nontraditional. Some of you might be puzzled as to where I’m going with this, after all Halloween has been celebrated for hundreds of years, how can it not be traditional?,  Answer: It’s not Jamaican tradition to celebrate Halloween. How is this possible? Let me explain, Jamaica was ruled by the British for 307 years, over that time period we inherited many aspects of British life and culture and incorporated with our own local culture which was also influenced by African, Amerindian and Asian aspects, one thing the British did not bequeath to us however was the celebration of Halloween. Sure we have our own myths, legends and horror stories (or as we like to call them Duppy Stories) which included figures Annie Palmer, Rolling Calf,  River Mumma and the like  but none of them have never been associated with Halloween in any shape or form, hence there is no historical or cultural justification for the celebration of Halloween in Jamaica.

                       

There has been somewhat of a cultural shift however where for the last few years Halloween is now becoming more popular in Jamaica. As a child growing up, the only time I was ever made aware of Halloween was through the influence of television programmes (especially horror movies) which were all imported from the United States, besides that there was no other mention of Halloween and most certainly nothing that was ever connected to Jamaican folklore. That however is changing as more and more people seem to be getting inot the Halloween spirit around this time of year, dressing up in Halloween costumes and going to Halloween-themed parties on the weekend closest to October 31, If we’re not careful we’ll soon see Jamaican children engaging in trick-or –treat to mimic those children from other countries as often seen on television.

                      

To be frank, I have nothing against those who wish to celebrate it, especially in countries where that is the norm after all  they have a right to participate in all aspects of their national cultural life and maintain the traditions of their forefathers, however being a traditionalist I am wary of the erosion of our own local culture to give rise to something that is foreign and alien to us, tradition must be preserved and in the case of Jamaica, our own customs does not include Halloween celebrations, it’s high time to stop wanting to copy everything that  foreigners (particularly Americans) like to do and stick to our way of doing things. This is by no means meant to decry or announce American culture really after all other countries celebrate Halloween too and  some  might even ask so why pick on them?, the answer is quite simple,  It's not a matter of picking on them per se  but  let's be honest here, while other countries have Halloween as well, it is the imposition of American culture through the mass media that has caused so many Jamaicans to become more in tuned to Halloween, the mentality that causes so many to be brainwashed into thinking that it’s better to follow fashion than stay original. The fact that many Jamaicans now choose to celebrate Halloween is only a symptom of a bigger problem: that of cultural erosion and the damaging effect that this new cultural shift is having on our people.  

Another Hollow Speech

            Unless I’m mistaken, the very first post written in this blog was in reference to the 2012 Annual Conference of the People’s National Party, time has certainly flown as just yesterday the Peoples National Party held its 2013 national conference to culminate a month long of activities in which the PNP celebrated its 75^th anniversary as a movement having been founded by the Right Excellent Norman Manley in September 1938.

                            

As is traditional of party conferences on both sides of the political divide, the highlight of the day was the speech by Party Leader Portia Simpson Miller (who also happens to be the current  Prime Minister of Jamaica) , the speech of the Prime Minister was somewhat lacking, she focused much of the first half of her speech retracing the history of the party and its leaders from Norman Manley, his son Michael Manley and then to P.J. Patterson in which she over exaggerated the achievements made under various PNP administrations  over the many years while at the same time completely ignoring some of the failings that also happened in the same  period such as the great social-political upheavals of the 1970s and the Finsac Crisis of the 1990s which did much damage to the middle class and the productive sector, a big part of the reason why Jamaica is where it is today .

                       

                       

The latter part of the comrade leader’s speech was  just as uninspiring , the Prime Minister extended her speech by constant repetition,  glorifying the few achievements of the PNP since they retook the reins of power while failing to accept responsibility for much of the problems that are now facing the nation, choosing instead their populist tag line “it’s JLP’s fault”, how convenient of her to forget that the People’s National Party was in power for 18 years from 1989 to 2007, while the Labour Party had only a four stint from 2007-2011, there is no way that the multi-billion dollar debt that the country now has could be all JLP’s fault.  Comrade Portia in her speech missed the mark by failing to address important national issues such as unemployment, the debt burden and the crime rate, she also did not hesitate to cast cold water on those who criticized the secrecy of her dealings with the Chinese concerning the global logistic hub, though she mentioned a few points it was not enough to give anyone a real idea of what the vision of her government really was. Also surprising was her total silence on the matter of corruption, which given the scandals that are currently rocking the People’s National Party one would have expected that she would be more forthcoming on the matter yet she continues to give full support to both Philip Paulwell and Richard Azan who has now resigned his cabinet post as though they did nothing wrong (see http://jamaicatory.blogspot.com/2013/09/contractor-general-vs-pnp.html).

                      

In like manner as 2012, the Jamaican Tory must again classify the PM’s 2013 conference speech as being devoid of any real substance (see http://jamaicatory.blogspot.com/2012/10/i-really-must-comment-on-speech-given.html), a view shared by many political commentators and private sector interest groups ,The PM should take care to remember  that even though those  seated in front of her are primarily fellow comrades, her speech is broadcasted live to the entire nation in which Comrades, Labourites and all manner of other stakeholders are looking to her not only as Party Leader but more importantly as Prime Minister  to hear what plans her government has in store for the country, clearly her speech has fail to hit home with many audiences hence the reviews. 

Leadership Challenge? Bad Idea

One could not have been in Jamaica and not have heard this story, after all it has been in the news for an entire week, and is one of the hottest topic of discussion right now particularly on local talk shows. There are quite a bit of rumblings going on in the opposition Jamaica Labour Party as it is indicated that Audley  “Man-a-Yard  Shaw”  might have is eyes on the top job in the party and is carrying on consultations to see whether or not he should challenge the incumbent  Andrew Holness for the leadership when the Party host it’s annual conference in November , Shaw is currently one of the 4 deputy leaders of the JLP, Chairman of Area Council Three, Member of Parliament for North East Manchester, a former finance minister and the current shadow minister of the same portfolio. Holness on the other hand is Member of Parliament for West Central St Andrew, a former Prime Minister and Minister of Education, he is also the  current Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

Given what has been said so far it seems as though the tide is swaying in favour of the incumbent rather than the challenger, something Shaw probably did not anticipate given the recent defeat the party had faced at both local and national levels. However it seems as though many labourites are still loyal to the incumbent leader , several senior JLP MPs have already publicly declaring their support for Holness continuing as leader, Everald Warmington one of the most outspoken MPs and Chairman of Area Council Two had no qualms about publicly declaring where his loyalties lie and urged the delegates in his constituency in do likewise, while former culture minster Olivia “Babsy” Grange even went as far as to assert that any member of the JLP that wishes to mount a challenge at this time has an alternate agenda that means no good to the party or the country.

                    

Looking over the history of the Labour Party ever since it’s foundation 70 years ago, a certain trend has been noticed, since 1943, the JLP has had four leaders and none of them were elected by popular vote of the delegates of the party. The JLP was founded by Sir Alexander Bustamante to challenge the People’s National Party and others in Jamaica’s first general election that was held the following year. Although he retired for parliament in 1967, Sir Alexander remained as Party Leader while the senior deputy leader (Sir Donald Sangster and later Hugh Shearer) served as Prime Minister. In 1974 when Bustamante finally retired from the party, labourites began searching for a new leader. Shearer was not seen as the most suitable candidate given his election loss to Michael Manley and the PNP in 1972, so they turned to Edward “Papa Eddie” Seaga and he took the party in hand and lead it from 1974 to 2005, serving as Prime Minister from 1980-1989. When Seaga retired the senior hierarchy of the JLP unwilling to have the party divided by a leadership contest decided to work with who they thought was the most winnable candidate and settled on Bruce Golding who led them to victory two years later after 18 years out of government.  After only one term as JLP leader and Prime Minister, Golding also decided that it was time to go and again a succession crisis arose and the party leadership was settled in the same way as it was in 2005, this time with Holness emerging as victor, the delegates of the Jamaica Labour Party were for the most part left out.

              

Of course in all fairness one cannot blame the party leadership for all of this, the delegates too must share the blame, after all according to the constitution of the JLP, the delegates in theory have a opportunity to elect a new leader every November when conference comes around, it’s just that they have never exercised this right, that will certainly change this year and one can only wait and see what the results will be (personally I’m betting on Holness). Some have accused Man-a-Yard of trying to unseat the leader by surreptitious and underhanded means and they also claim that he has no right to mount a challenge but is being driven solely by personal ambition; of course Shaw denies these charges. These are baseless accusations, in truth Shaw has every right to challenge for the leadership and so far he has not gone contrary to the party’s constitution. That does not however mean that the decision to challenge is a wise one as the opposition surely has better things to do than internal squabbling.

                        

Overall the situation is like this, Labourites are more interested in a change of government than they are in a change of party leadership, many resent Shaw for what they see as his attempts to divide the party for personal gain (some have even accused him of being a PNP comrade for doing so), personally I think that it’s not too late for him to back down after all he has not officially announced a challenge, but in either case the Jamaica Labour Party will have everything to loose and nothing to gain if it remains divided along sectarian lines and distracted by personality issues.