Andrew Holness, the young MP for West Central St. Andrew, has since apologised for his moment of juvenile churlishness in refusing to shake the hand of the Political Ombudsman, Bishop Herro Blair, and refusing to take part in a peace march through his constituency.

Mr. Holness' family, if not all his political colleagues, will be well pleased with his emotional and teary retreat for it reinforced what they always knew about Mr. Holness: he is at heart a decent young man. Strike his silly behaviour to youthful exuberance and a brief over-burden of arrogance.

But that having been said, we shouldn't miss the fundamental point that was made by Mr. Holness when he declared a march for peace with his People's National Party constituency rival Patrick Roberts as an act of mere symbolism. Obviously, Mr. Holness doesn't trust Mr. Roberts and said as much.

We can't speak to the veracity of the inferences made by Mr. Holness against Mr. Roberts and his clearly heartfelt belief that Mr. Roberts is not good for the constituency.

But even as we suggest to Mr. Holness that symbols are often powerful purveyors of important messages, we understand his concern and applaud his willingness to take a stand - even if in this case with crassness and inelegance.

Indeed, no one can be against Mr. Holness' declared abhorrence of political violence or behaviour that, unwittingly or otherwise, morphed into our so-called garrison communities - zones of political exclusion where democratic freedoms are perverted and people's lives have grown cheap. Maybe unfairly, Mr. Holness does not believe that Mr. Roberts has done or is doing enough to change the old and callused attitudes of garrison politics. Indeed, the absence of a fully defined or clearly articulated anti-garrison stance by Mr. Roberts, delivered at the national level, does not necessarily mean that he lacks a well-developed position on the issue or that he does not deal with the issue in the constituency.

Nonetheless, last week's fiasco notwithstanding, we would urge Mr. Roberts and Mr. Holness to engage in an important bit of symbolism. They, from a platform in the heart of West Central St. Andrew, should again sign the Political Code of Conduct and declare themselves, if they believe it, committed to ending divisiveness and the kind of violence that caused Bishop Blair to want to have a peace march in sections of the constituency. Then they should back the words with deeds.

But having declared himself beyond garrison politics and pledged himself to the fight against it, Mr. Holness ought not to limit his criticisms and analyses to the actions and behaviour of his political opponents. Indeed, the position he articulated last week has equal relevance within the Jamaica Labour Party.

He should be telling anyone in his own party, of whatever station, who sits in and or engages in garrison-style politics that their actions have no place in the Jamaica he wants to build. And he should talk not only in the party's backroom but in the glaring light of public scrutiny. He should also seek out persons of like mind in the ruling PNP to create an alliance to deepen the process.