Top Ten Stories of 2013

 

Following are ten big stories of 2013. How did these stories impact you? 

 

10.Tessanne Chin wins the US talent show The Voice: this was a story that captivated us for the last few months of the year. Social media rallied around #TeamTessanne and Jamaicans everywhere were proud to see one of their own doing so well on a US stage. Tessanne’s ever-present humility, attachment to her fellow contestants, gratitude to her coach Adam Levine and of course, obvious talent made the show a must-watch for thousands every week. As I wrote here, the story is undeniably newsworthy. Having said that, let me anticipate the howls of protest over my designation of this story as number 10. This was the ultimate feel-good, inspirational story. However, it hasn’t and will not, affect any of the pressing issues facing the country, and neither will it impact in any long-lasting way (compared to the other stories on my list) the lives of Jamaicans.

 

English: Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

9. Nelson Mandela’s death: The death of the first black President of South Africa resonated around the world. The Jamaican link with the struggle against apartheid made his passing especially poignant for us, and his accomplishments as a freedom fighter and world leader made us think about what leadership and sacrifice really mean.

 

8. Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller’s leadership: The Prime Minister came under more scrutiny for aspects of her leadership. Her foreign travel, and limited dealings with the press, and interaction with the public through press conferences, public fora, meetings etc. were among the issues discussed.

 

7. Richard Azan – the state minister’s resignation after being criticized for his involvement in construction of shops at the Spaulding market ignited discussion about governance, the role of Members of Parliament and playing by the rules. His re-instatement by Prime Minister Simpson-Miller was just as controversial.

 

6 JLP leadership challenge:  A bona fide leadership campaign and election in the

 

JLP supporters
Photo by DJ Miller

Opposition Jamaica Labour Party made news for months. As I said in this article in the Gleaner, the leadership campaign allowed us to start to get a better feeling for Andrew Holness as a political leader.

 

5. Goat Island development : The proposal to allow Chinese investors to build a transshipment port on the Goat Islands set off a huge public discussion about government decision-making processes, sustainable development, and the importance of protected areas.

 

4. Children in care of the state: the continued advocacy of children’s rights groups saw them coming into conflict with the government on several occasions. There are few more important stories than how we treat our most vulnerable – children among them.

 

3. Murder figures rise again – Murder figures are rising again, attributed by the National Security Minister and the Police Commissioner to criminal gangs, and an increase in the drugs trade. There are very few things that concern Jamaicans more, affect the country’s image more negatively, and touch our sense of safety and security every single day.

 

2. Economy/IMF – the hardships for the average Jamaican as a result of Jamaica’s under-performing economy and the IMF agreement including increased taxes and a sliding dollar continued to hit Jamaicans in the pocketbook.

 

No smoking symbol1 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

1. Ban on smoking in public places : for me, this was one of the single most significant stories in 2013. The World Health Organisation reports that 600,000 people die every year from second hand smoke. WHO reported earlier this year that “Tobacco control measures in place in 41 countries between 2007 and 2010 will prevent some 7.4 million premature deaths by 2050.”  The Jamaican regulations, although still a work in progress, need to be seen in this context

 

Should Andrew Holness Have Released the JLP Election Review Earlier?

GA2010_OCWSJ_BB_ABS_2361 (Photo credit: WorldSkills)

In a word, yes. That’s all there is to it. When Jamaica Labour Party Leader Andrew Holness named a commission headed by Professor Bernard Headley in April last year to evaluate reasons for the JLP loss in the December 2011 general election, it was seen as a good move. The Gleaner’s editorial writers  commended him.

“Their job will be to take a 360-degree look at the Jamaica Labour Party and make recommendations for its reform, indeed, transformation,” Holness said at a press conference. 

Mr. Holness received the report early this year. He then kept it under wraps. So naturally, it became an issue. In every interview, he would be asked, “When are you going to release the report?” His answer would be some version of “Not yet.”

The report became fodder for the campaign of Mr. Holness’s challenger for the leadership of the party, Audley Shaw.

In an interview with me last week, Mr. Holness announced that the party’s executives

Image by jscreationzs at http://www.freedigitalphotos.net

had decided that party officials would get the report this week, and it would then be “cascaded” to the Area Councils, and finally the general public would get to see the executive summary. Why not the full report? Apparently it was thought this might give a strategic advantage to those outside the party.

Some accommodating soul then leaked a copy to the Gleaner, which has been publishing sections of the report. But having seen this report, there seems to be no rational reason for Mr. Holness’s insistence on secrecy.

Remember, the PNP commissioned a review of the reasons for the party’s loss in the 2007 general election. The Brian Meeks led Commission published a report which was made public in short order. You can even find it on the Internet.

The Meeks report pointed to a number of problems, for example, the long campaign period caused by Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller announcing, at a public meeting in early July, an August 27 election date.

“The August 27 date made the campaign too long, deflated the comrades, put more stress on an exhausted organization, opened the door for more JLP money to flow to the electorate, gave them more time to decimate the PNP with their media campaign…” said the report.

And this:

 “there was strong support for the view that the party’s media campaign was the worst in recent history…”

The Meeks Report also said that “There was a strong view coming from the constituencies as well as the leadership that campaign organization from the centre was seriously flawed.”

The point is, the report laid bare problems in the PNP which led to its election loss. The press did pick it up, but no more than was to be expected. I mean come on, the PNP lost. Clearly there were problems. Evaluation after a major setback is what organisations do. Recommendations will be made, but the real issue will be what is done with those recommendations and whether the organization concerned then begins the hard process of re-organising and re-building.

In refusing to release the Headley Report for so long, Mr. Holness lost control of the process and made the issues outlined loom larger than they really are. Most, if not all of the problems  identified by the Headley Commission had already been picked up by most political commentators and observers. There is nothing shocking or electrifying in it. Mr. Holness’s leadership comes in for some criticism, but so does the party leadership as a whole.  And there are positive comments about the party leader. For instance, the Report said that:

“In the discussions related to the party leader the discussion pendulum swung erratically from one extreme to the next…the stronger sentiments would suggest that Mr. Holness is liked and respected and that he has a high degree of trust from the party base. It was felt that his leadership while at the Ministry of Education spoke to an organised, knowledgeable and fearless leadership personality…”

On the other hand, it went on to say:

“…there was a fear that he would be unable to manage the party, to bring the dissenting quarters together…the Review Team found that there were concerns that the leader was too soft, and needed to be more assertive and a suggestion that he needed to follow the leadership style of Edward Seaga especially since he was ‘coached’ by Mr. Seaga.

“…the Party Leader needs to look into his own personal leadership currency, there appeared at the time of the review to be a lot of support for leadership…there were concerns that he was perhaps too aloof…”

The timing of the election, of course, was cited as a major problem with some supporters, according to the Report, viewing this as the most significant factor in the Party’s loss.

But the reviewers also highlighted the party’s weak election machinery, and problems with the candidate selection system and public relations strategy, and poor media relations. Since Mr. Holness only became leader after accepting the endorsement of senior party officials on October 5, 2011, problems contributing to a big election loss in December could hardly be laid at his feet alone. The Gleaner’s editorial writers opined that the report had not been “unkind” to him.

Given that, the politically strategic move would have been to immediately release the report, and allow everyone interested to have his or her say.

Mr. Holness should then have moved swiftly to implement the recommendations and initiate re-building.

Instead of which, he is now, half way into the government’s term in office and days away from a major challenge to his leadership, talking about “cascading” the report for discussion within the party. Taking action early would have eliminated one major plank of his challenger’s campaign, and removed the possibility of criticisms of his being weak, indecisive and afraid to face up to the truth as outlined in the review.

If Mr. Holness loses the leadership election, his decision to “hug up” that report is likely to be a major cause. If he wins, it will be in spite of it.

Andrew v Audley

Boxing gloves (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Elections are never easy. One winner, one, or more – losers. The winner here will be named the Opposition Leader, lead a revitilised opposition into the second half of the ruling government’s term, and hope to move his Dulcimina into Jamaica House in a couple of years. There were all kinds of reasons given by JLP members as to why they disagreed with a leadership election. Rubbish. Here are three reasons the election is a good thing.

1. A stronger leader: If Andrew Holness wins, it legitimizes and strengthens his leadership position. If Audley Shaw wins, it should put to rest, at least for now, some of the simmering tension in the party over the leadership issues.
2. Democracy is actually a good thing: The JLP needs to realize it can hold an election campaign, and yes, say naughty things about one another without the world coming to an  end. So the PNP is gathering footage for its next ad campaign. So what? A strong vigorous campaign led by an energized leader is likely to more than negate that.
3. The opposition has woken up. Big time. Andrew Holness told me he was being responsible and allowing the government room to implement the actions that were necessary for the country, but now it’s time for the Opposition to go to work. Whether you accept that explanation or believe that the new energy is due to the campaign, we the public will be the winners. We need a vital, impatient Opposition to keep government on its toes.

And that is our interest here. Most of us have no vote. But our current system of government will ensure that the winner of the JLP leadership election will be the Opposition Leader. It’s not just about leading the party. It’s about one day maybe leading Jamaica. It’s that serious.

NB: A Dulcimina is an old-fashioned suitcase. See photo number 5 in this link to the Gleaner. 

Parliament’s Sectoral Debate. Yawn.

 

Gordon House – seat of Jamaica’s Parliament
Photo by DJ Miller

In 2011, then backbencher the Reverend Ronald Thwaites, Member of Parliament for Central Kingston, raised a long-standing problem, the sectoral debates in Parliament. The sectoral debate, which follows the budget debate, is a platform for every single Member of Parliament to address the House. Portfolio Ministers use the opportunity, naturally, to speak about their portfolios, opposition spokesman and women also tend to address portfolio issues, and backbenchers tend to concentrate on their constituencies.

It sounds good, but its implementation has been anything but. It is a never-ending exercise, often dragging on for months. It is boring, the speeches, like most parliamentary speeches, are far too long, and opposition spokespersons and portfolio Ministers are for some strange reason, not scheduled together to enable a useful, comprehensive discussion of national issues. In addition, the schedule is always being changed as Members are constantly asking for their presentations to be rescheduled.

At the time, then Prime Minister Andrew Holness agreed with Rev. Thwaites that a new structure was needed and noted that the public was uninterested in the exercise.

Rev. Thwaites had made suggestions for the revamping of the debate, including a more focused approach, looking at national themes such as economic growth and social issues.

I had hoped the discussion would have been the start of meaningful reform, leading to a more vibrant, useful exercise. Alas, we have seen nothing of that.

As always, my question to the parliamentarians is “Who are you talking to?’ or better yet “Who do you think is listening?’

Surely a more vigorous debate would spark wider public discussion, throw up more ideas for national development, get more press and more favourable attention for bright, thinking Parliamentarians. It should be win-win for us the public, and the parliamentarians. Apparently, none of that matters. So here we are again, in the middle of yet another sectoral debate stretching on and on and on. Yawn.

 

Five Things We Can Learn From the US Presidential Campaign

Official photographic portrait of US President Barack Obama (born 4 August 1961; assumed office 20 January 2009) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

It’s campaign season in the United States and US President Barack Obama and his opponent Mitt Romney are edging closer to election day. Many Jamaicans are following the campaign and enjoying the spectacle. While we do so, there are some things we can take from the Americans.

1. “Democracy doesn’t have to be a blood sport.” – This was said by former US President Bill Clinton at the Democratic National Convention. Well, the truth is that US politics is often vicious, and campaigns can leave blood in the water. Given how close this election could be, it will be interesting to see if the Obama campaign can stick to the high ideal expressed by Clinton. The thing is though, he was speaking figuratively. Too often for us in Jamaica, those words could be taken literally. Yes, we’ve come a far way in curbing political violence, but we’re not there yet.

2. Lay it all out there. The candidates are subjected to a thorough vetting process. Between debates, media interviews, town hall meetings, it’s hard for candidates to dodge the issues and the tough questions. Too often our politicians manage to do just that. Between releasing manifestos on the very eve of the election, and restricting media interviews, too many politicians are able to slide into office without us having any clear idea of their positions on major issues, or without having those positions subjected to rigorous analysis and scrutiny.

3. Debates are good. The US Presidential candidates debate extensively at the primary stage and there are debates between the presidential nominees and even a vice-presidential debate. In fact, some people were complaining that the Republicans debated too much! Part of that of course, is

Mitt Romney & The Republican Team Event (Photo credit: mnassal)

due to their wanting to make an impact in the different states. We don’t have that issue, and we are a whole lot smaller. Still, we could do more. It’s good that we do have political debates, but it would be nice to see us step it up. Three leadership debates, for example, would be a good start, with different formats for each. Also, the public should be able to see the candidates for party leadership debate. The argument that party leadership elections are an internal matter is clearly nonsense, as the parties then use the parliamentary structure to catapult the new leader into the position of Prime Minister, as we saw with both the PNP’s Portia Simpson-Miller and the JLP’s Andrew Holness.

4. Country first. Whatever  problems you may have with the Americans (and the list is probably endless) one does get a deep sense of commitment to country from their candidates. Love of country and patriotism is one of the  things the Americans do best. Too often, from our politicians, I get a clear sense of party first.

5. Campaign reform is hard. Big money has always wielded a heavy influence in politics, and the US’s efforts to limit that influence have had very mixed results. That’s not to say we shouldn’t try. But we should study their history closely. At the very least, we may be able to get an understanding of what doesn’t work.

The JLP’s Shadow Cabinet Ministers– How Are They Doing?

Opposition Leader Andrew Holness
Photo - Wikimedia Commons

Jamaican Opposition Leader Andrew Holness named his Shadow Cabinet at a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) press conference three months ago. Do you remember who they are? Here’s the list again.

Andrew Holness – Opposition Leader – defence, development, operations of the Office of the Prime Minister

Audley Shaw – Finance, Planning, Growth and Economic Development

Delroy Chuck – Justice, National Security, Electoral Matters and Leader of Opposition Business in the House

Arthur Williams – Information, Public Service, Labour and Leader of Opposition Business in the Senate

Kenneth Baugh – Health and Quality of Life

Karl Samuda – Transport, Works and Infrastructure Development

Edmund Bartlett – Tourism and Travel Service Development

J.C. Hutchinson – Agriculture, Mining and Natural Resource Use

Daryl Vaz – ICT and Digital Society Development

Horace Chang – Housing, Water and Environment

Shahine Robinson – Social Security and Poverty Reduction

Gregory Mair – Industry, Commerce and Energy

Olivia ‘Babsy’ Grange – Youth, Sports, Gender Affairs, Entertainment and Culture

Desmond McKenzie – Urban Renewal, Rural Development and Local Government

Senator Christopher Tufton – Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Investment

Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert – Education and Human Resource Development.

In an earlier post, I said we should demand more from the Opposition. The Opposition’s effectiveness hinges on the effectiveness of its Shadow Ministers.

Some spokespersons, like Ed Bartlett and Olivia Grange were given portfolios with which they were very experienced, having shadowed the portfolio before and then having spent four years as the responsible Minister.

Others, like Christopher Tufton and Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert now have to master a new subject. So at this stage, they are not all on equal footing. In addition, it’s reasonable to expect that the JLP would still be re-grouping after their December 29 electoral loss. There will be assessments to be made, reviews and individual and collective soul-searching going on.

That said, since the Opposition Leader promised a vibrant Opposition, who have we seen and heard from so far?

Photo - Akinbostanci
www.sxc.hu

Audley Shaw, Delroy Chuck, Horace Chang, Arthur Williams, Gregory Mair, Ken Baugh, Karl Samuda, Ed Bartlett and Desmond McKenzie are the primary spokespersons who have been visible, along with the Opposition Leader himself. Olivia Grange has so far been heard primarily responding to the government’s position on the Jamaica 50 celebrations.

We’ve heard very little, if anything, on their portfolio areas from Marisa Dalrymple-Philibert, Daryl Vaz, Shahine Robinson, J.C. Hutchinson or Christopher Tufton.

As stated, it’s early days yet, and another three to six months will give us a better picture of who’s taking their portfolio responsibilities seriously. It will be interesting to see if the list of who is speaking out or not changes in the months ahead.

Has anyone impressed you yet, and if so, who?