- IAN ALLEN/STAFF PHOTOGRAPHER
Portia Simpson Miller during the PSOJ question and answer session at the Hilton Kingston hotel, in January.
Shalman Scott, Contributor
A BAD and eventually unpopular piece of advice has landed my friend Portia Simpson Miller into hot political waters. This has jolted her campaign, raising fresh question about her ability to handle tough and challenging situations.
I refer to the lady's decision not to participate in the PSOJ/MAJ national debate with the other contenders for the post of PNP president, and ultimately Prime minister of Jamaica.
Many feel, despite her explanations, that Portia Simpson Miller is shying away from a debate with, particularly, Omar Davies and Peter Phillips, which she knows she cannot win. What is annoying to many Jamaicans, including some of her ardent supporters, is that Simpson Miller seems to take them for fools.
It is recalled that on the first occasion of her encounter with the PSOJ, she made a lame excuse as a prelude to her exit from that debate then returned and, by conflicting report, some claimed she did well, while others claimed the whole affair was stage managed - She spoke for 65 minutes instead of the 20 minutes allotted and, therefore, there was not time to ask of her serious and detailed questions.
CONFLICTING REPORTS
With conflicting reports of her performance at that PSOJ meeting, there was eager anticipation to finally establish the facts. Those who support her wanted to prove beyond any doubt that their candidate was the best choice. Those who are wavering wanted the debate to help them in making up their minds.
Alas, however, the only persons Sister P has not disappointed are those who continue to say that she cannot manage and would run away from facing a debate with the other contenders.
I overheard a joke about her decision not to debate. It goes like this: since Portia has been consistently claiming that she is unstoppable, one does not know why the PSOJ/MAJ thought Simpson Miller would stop for a debate.
The joke-giver's advice was for all involved to get quickly out of her way!
More seriously, the debates have become a natural and normal part of our political life. Apart from the opportunity it provides for us to see the respective candidates operating in a serious context (as opposed to the rabble-rousing street side talks) and under pressure, its entertainment and comic value are also eagerly anticipated.
And from this particular perspective, Portia's decision not to participate in the debate has reduced our fun.
Most of us will recall the 1992 debate between Portia Simpson Miller and P.J. Patterson. At one point during that debate when Portia battled futilely with the answering of a question which was being put to her for the third time, P.J. Patterson zoomed in on the opportunity with: "I think I can help her answer what she has been asked!" Patterson then went on to answer masterfully.
It was a display of fine gamesmanship on the part of P.J. Patterson, devoid of arrogance and condescension for his rival Portia Simpson Miller.
But the point is that, consistent with our democratic tradition, the public's verdict was arrived at from an informed position facilitated by the television cameras and radio broadcast. The credibility of the process was never in doubt on that occasion or before, and the practice of national political debates has now become entrenched. Simpson Miller, by pulling out of the national debate, has botched her own opportunity to prove that she has grown since 1992; to prove that she has become more informed, educated and more experienced.
More importantly, she has missed an opportunity to regain the confidence of some of her colleagues who claim that, apart from her pontificating and flippant generalisations, they are still at a loss as to where Simpson Miller stands on the issues of economy the deficit,the national debt, inflation etc.
Where does she stand on the CARICOM Single Market and Economy? Where does she stand on the enabling environment as she fans the populist flames of mass expectations, oblivious to the dire economic straits that face the country in the short, medium and long term?
Simpson Miller, through non-participation in the debate, lost an opportunity to focus on specifics and eschew - even momentarily - the excessive rhetoric that has become commonplace in Team Portia's campaign.
There is another troubling possibility not mentioned by her colleagues, i.e., a contentious relationship between a government led by Portia Simpson Miller and the private sector! Pity Simpson Miller's advisers could not see beyond the veil of a fleeting and fickle populist response or, in this case, its expectation.
They should recall that Jamaicans are not to be taken for granted. For, while we enjoy a good belly laugh regularly, we are a very serious and politically sophisticated people.
Noteworthy, also, is that the women in the Cabinet and most of the leadership of the PNP's Women's Movement are not with Portia. The same is true for the Senate.
In Local Government where she is the minister, she has failed to get the councillors solidly behind her. Here is a cadre in which solid organisational intellectual and experiential resource is located, and from which Simpson Miller has been seriously denied support. As a result, apart from Roger Clarke and few others at leadership level, she has to gather what she can find in an alliance called Team Portia.
Portia Simpson Miller honestly admits to, and accepts her shortcomings, and offers to compensate for these with the use of advisers and consultants.
But, it is with the same shortcomings that she has begun to select her advisers and these do not seem to be doing a good job at all for her.
She should tell some of these consultants and advisers, nicely and quietly, to recess to a back seat.
Shalman Scott is political analyst.
