The timing of the suggestion will no doubt cause many people in, and outside, the People's National Party (PNP) to question the motive of Mr Robert Pickersgill's proposal for greater security of tenure for the leader of the party.

He wants the president, once elected, to serve for at least three years rather than being open, as is possible under the PNP's existing constitution, to an annual challenge.

The cynics, of course, will claim that this is an attempt by her supporters to create a cordon sanitaire around Mrs Portia Simpson Miller, who last month beat off a challenge by Dr Peter Phillips for the presidency of the PNP, having in 2006 prevailed in a four-way race to succeed P. J. Patterson.

Potential for instability

Mr Pickersgill may be rightly concerned about the rents caused by those contests and the potential for instability if there was a perennial challenge to the leader. We, nonetheless, advise the PNP to think long and hard before changing its constitution and effecting what some will see as an attempt to circumscribe democracy. Indeed, Mr Pickersgill would not be surprised if some colleagues interpret his effort as being specifically directed at the Peter Phillips wing of the party in the aftermath of his defeat, albeit narrowly.

There is, of course, merit to Mr Pickersgill's implied, but unmade, argument that one year is a short time for a new leader to fulfil his or her mandate and that an early challenge can be distracting. Indeed, in some countries, party leaders, especially those in command structures where the party is paramount, enjoy lengthy tenures.

It is also plausible to note that at the national level, a prime minister's implied tenure is for five years although, in our Westminster model, he can be removed at any time once he loses the confidence of the majority of the members of Parliament.

Unique circumstance

Moreover, the circumstances under which the PNP have faced two presidential races in a short period and specifically the direct challenge to Mrs Simpson Miller were unique. In the first instance, there was a contest of succession, whereby Mrs Simpson Miller automatically served 18 months as prime minister and then lost a general election. She, in the circumstance, did not offer her resignation and seek to renew her mandate, although it was clear that a large bloc of the party was unhappy with her leadership.

The leadership question is essentially settled and it can be reasonably assumed that the party will settle back to the convention of the leader being returned by acclamation at the annual conferences. Mrs Simpson Miller's performance would have to be spectacularly bad for someone to have the stomach for a challenge to win credible support. Already, too, some will point out, a leader's control of the levers of a political party is so significant that it is not easy for him or her to be defeated. In any event, why not let democracy work? In the UK, the Conservatives went through nearly half dozen leaders in just a few more years.

But should the PNP decide to proceed with Mr Pickersgill's suggestion, it may want to consider a provision that the president has to win with at least two-thirds of the votes of all delegates, rather than a simple majority as is now the case.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.