IanBoyne September is the seventh month on the biblical (Jewish) calendar Tishri so, ironically, though the Prime Minister never initially wanted a September election, perhaps not knowing this fact, some would say the holding of elections this month is providential.
The problem is her own party pollster does not think so, according to his Gleaner-commissioned poll published Thursday which shows the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) ahead of the People's National Party (PNP). And many people believe that Prophet Phinn will be 'Phinnished' on Monday night. In only a matter of hours, all the speculation will be over and then it will be time for the analysts and spinners to give their take.
I have never claimed to be a prophet, but my analysis of political matters has stood the test of time. In 2002 when Bruce Golding was being savaged in the media and projected as spineless for 'crawling back' into the JLP, I predicted: "It is not likely that Edward Seaga would stick around long after an electoral defeat. Bruce would then be able to fashion the JLP in his own image and likeness. And within the next few years, with an established party machinery and network behind him, he would pose a serious challenge to the PNP."
Gripped with Portiamania
In one of my columns of March 2006, with the country gripped with Portiamania following her victory in the PNP presidential race, I wrote in a column titled 'Why Portia won': "The PNP faces the real prospect of a fifth term if Portia calls the election in a few months. She can't wait too long. Euphoria is ephemeral." Shortly after Portia's victory the polls showed her popularity in the 70s.
I went on to say: "Remember, as Rex Nettleford always reminds us, 'Palm Sunday (with Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem) is followed by crucifixion on Good Friday'. Timing will be crucial to Portia."
I concluded my article thus: "The honeymoon will not be long, though. Portia has to strike the iron when it's hot and before the cheering dies down." Even if Portia is returned as Prime Minister tomorrow night, hindsight now proves that it would have been the best decision to call the elections a few months after her being sworn in as Prime Minister. The issue of party unity should have been dealt with decisively, paving the way for the PNP to face the general elections as a united, strong party.
In a column titled, 'Portia, Peter and the PNP' (August 8, 2004), I wrote, "No election in its history of electoral contests will stretch the PNP's creativity, marketing brilliance, organisational skills and strategic thinking more than the one due in 2007." Why? Because as I said then, "The two parties are basically committed to the same neoliberal model of economic development with some variation on the theme. And the PNP has been in power for four terms, which creates a natural momentum to shout 'time's up!'
"When you have been in power for four terms, even if the economy is going in the right direction and investments are flowing, there is the intuitive feeling by the average voter that somebody else should be 'given a chance'; that no party should govern for so long and that the parties get arrogant and complacent after three terms, let alone four."
But I said something else which I think was also significant. In writing about the dilemmas faced by the PNP in choosing a successor to P.J. Patterson, I wrote in that 2004 column that "Portia has strong popular appeal and is likely to whip up much electoral support for a fifth term, but faced with the ideas merchant and born-again political reformer Bruce Golding, with a strong image as a serious thinker, do they take the chance with Portia or let Dr. Peter loose on him?" That was the dilemma I said the PNP faced.
There was another crucial point which I made then, too. "That the PNP successor will be Prime Minister before an election is called and that we will have time to assess his or her work before 2007 is not likely to be a plus. It's a big gamble. Bruce Golding will be coming in fresh, new, different and born again. The PNP successor must make a mark in two years or less."
Let's admit it, that for the PNP to be even just four points behind the JLP after four terms and 18 and a half years is not disastrous. Remember that there are no big ideological or wedge issues between the PNP and the JLP. If either of them loses it would make no difference to institutional investors abroad, the multilateral institutions or foreign Governments. (Chávez would prefer a PNP government for sentimental reasons, but Portia would no quicker make an anti-American statement than would Bruce, and the JLP would not be suspending relations with Venezuela because of Chávez).
Macroeconomic model
The two parties are committed to the same basic macroeconomic model, though the JLP's version is more activist. The JLP, I predict, will have to adjust any expansionist and redistributionist policies of its manifesto, once it sees that the international capital markets, the rating agencies and the IMF begin to frown. Don't believe they are going to carry out populist policies to please the masses. They understand the real world, even if they are not telling the people that from their platforms.
So the PNP has a hard time finding issues on which to separate itself from the JLP. It, therefore, relies a lot on attacking the credibility of Bruce Golding (just as the JLP has deliberately and systematically targeted Portia). The two parties are largely reduced to fighting out a personality contest because the issues separating them are not razor-sharp and those which do don't have the histrionic appeal, or are not so marketed.
(I continue to give the JLP high marks for its positions on governance, constitutional and political system reform, but these issues have been marginalised in the campaign, for the traditionalists in the party and the party's PR handlers have convinced Golding that these issues won't excite the masses. Their message is that Portia does not have the capacity to govern Jamaica; that the PNP has run out of ideas and that it has mismanaged for 18 years and its time to change course.)
The PNP's difficulty has been compounded by the fact that the JLP has stolen its legacy of social welfarism.The JLP has out-promised the PNP in terms of social goodies to the poor. Its free education and free health care carrot is being bitten by many who are not taken in by questions as to how they will really be financed. The PNP has calculated the JLP's promises to be about $69 billion, but the average man is not interested in economic debates about how those promises will bust the budget and fiscal targets, leading to deficits, debts and higher inflation.
And the financial analysts who should understand these matters are largely supporting the JLP; with the rest of the media not showing any significant interest in debating these matters either. I wrote in my March 6, 2006, column after Portia's victory that "Portia has been the darling of the media and that has been a major factor in her success". Nothing has changed vis-ˆ-vis Portia more radically than this.
Wilmot Perkins and Mark Wagnall, who were her cheerleaders in the electronic and print media in the Presidential campaign, are now her bitterest, most acerbic critics. The country's leading newsman, Cliff Hughes, who was endearingly in her hair literally in that famous Impact interview, has joined the anti-Portia brigade, along with his powerful Nationwide team.
The loss of media sympathy for Portia, coupled with a decisive and compelling victory in the air war have been a significant boon to the JLP. When this campaign is over, those commentators who used to underplay the importance of media in political campaigns, over-concentrating on the ground war, will have a lot of explaining to do.
Another noteworthy issue in this campaign is the influence of money. If you ever doubted the influence of money on campaign success, just check this campaign. That the moneyed class, both traditional and untraditional, has thrown its weight behind Golding is one of the established facts of this campaign.
The 2007 campaign is the social scientist's delight, though, strangely, in the media today we are not hearing from the established social scientists and our commentaries are largely bereft of scholarly analysis. We need to hear from the social scientists on the issue of race, class and capital in this election. We need to hear from them on the power of marketing and framing and how the working class can be co-opted to work in alliance with classes and interests antagonistic to its own class position.
The JLP has managed a strategic marketing feat: It has been bankrolled by Big Capital, the ruling class and New Money while speaking the language of the masses and promising social welfare programmes, which the power elite would characteristically oppose.
The social scientists must trace the rise of the authentically working class and grassroots woman Portia Simpson Miller to the highest political office in the land, taking with her the hopes and aspirations of the poor, black oppressed masses. In Portia the black masses have not just ruled through a vanguard, however progressive. It was direct rule for Portia is "one of them" in a way that even P.J. as a lawyer and elite-educated black man could not claim; and certainly Michael Manley could make no such claim.
If Portia loses tomorrow, the social scientists must do the analysis and draw out the implications of that loss for the working class movement, and for Jamaica's political history. If she wins, against the most massive constellation of forces against her, the analysis should be even richer.
Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com.
