Ian Boyne, Contributor

Peter Phillips' quest for the leadership of the People's National Party (PNP) just got harder. His hitherto major tool in his armoury, the loose and acerbic tongue of Donald Buchanan, has been cut with the announcement of the list of official spokespersons for the Portia camp.

With that wild cannon out of the way and the bloodhound Roger Clarke tamed by his exclusion from the list, the Portia faction of the party can consolidate that gain by ensuring that they are restrained on the political platform, or anywhere near any journalist. Indeed, I have a distinct sense that this time around Portia Simpson Miller is going to be managed, and that she now understands that there is no excuse for allowing anybody to draw her tongue.

I sense that we are witnessing a new, more strategic, more emotionally controlled Portia. This is deadly for Peter. Her speech before the National Executive Council (NEC) recently was a model of restraint and reason. It was a gem in terms of sobriety and subtlety. Last week, while she allowed Roger Clarke to be taped by the media - and that did not prove to be a good decision - she herself spoke outside of the glare of the cameras, so there was no opportunity for juicy sound bytes.

The more the PNP can conduct its internal electioneering outside of public view, the better for the PNP.

One wonders whether a collective madness has descended on the party. For how else could one explain its eagerness to publicise its internal wranglings and kass-kass? Why would you be calling the media with charges of corruption (vote-buying), threats of victimisation and breaches of party guidelines by fellow Comrades? Why make yourself available for media interviews to trace off other Comrades? Are these people crazy or what?

Sure, we in the media love it and were I running a newsroom I would be delighted that I don't have to spend the effort to ferret out the scandals and brawls, but that Comrades are so facilitating that they would rush me to publicise the dirty linen.

Race gets nastier

"The PNP race just got nastier," "the PNP race is turning ugly" and "things took a turn for the worse" are some favourite phrases used in media, and they don't even have to do any investigative work for that. The warring Comrades willingly come out to do the honours. These people need some elementary public relations help.

But quite apart from the cos-metics and public relations, there is a fundamental issue which the Peter Phillips' challenge to the leadership of Portia Simpson Miller has highlighted, and there has been no discussion on this critical issue: This issue concerns the profoundly undemocratic ethos in our party political culture. The PNP has always bragged about its honoured democratic traditions, and used to contrast itself proudly with the factious and bickering JLP in former times when they had their leadership struggles.

In fact, even the media had bought the propaganda line that while the JLP was personalistic and authoritarian, the PNP, because it was a more ideological and ideas-oriented party, was inherently more democratic in culture and moorings. The cultic response to the leadership challenge by Peter Phillips and the bitterness and hostility exhibited toward him by some supporters of the party leader indicate an undemocratic culture in the party. In political science, scholars make a distinction between a democratic system and a democratic culture.

Electoral democracies

There are countries which are electoral democracies but in which the democratic culture has not taken root. In a party in which the democratic ethos was embedded and internalised, a challenge to a party leader would not be seen as disruptive, divisive or self-seeking.

I could understand an argument being made that a challenge could be seen as truly selfish, narrow and disastrous because its timing is wrong and indicates a lack of concern for the interests of the group. In other words, someone could well resent a challenge to Portia at this time, not because he is cultic or unthinkingly loyal to the Maximum Leader, but because he carefully and dispassionately analysed the facts and sees that it does not benefit the party as a whole for anyone to challenge, for that would give an advantage to the opposition.

Loyal to Portia

I believe that some persons are of that view, and I think Donald Buchanan (with whom I have always had a warm personal relationship) and Roger Clarke are among those who genuinely take that view. They are loyal to Portia, but I accept that they sincerely believe Peter is misguided and driven by selfish personal ambition and is not acting in the interests of the party as a whole.

The view that Peter's timing is glaringly wrong is not convincing. Even before his paid political broadcast last Sunday outlined his thinking, I had speculated as to what might have guided him to make his move now, and it seems eminently rational to me.

With the pressures facing the Golding administration, and what many see as dashed expectations, the prime minister is not likely to call any snap election. In his broadcast Peter Phillips says the crucial court cases bearing on any election won't be concluded before next year. So Comrades don't have to fear Golding's capitalising on the PNP's internal divisions and electioneering. But he assured the public that even if Golding calls the election soon, the party would close ranks to fight that election.

Fracturing the party

Those Comrades who talk about the challenge fracturing and ripping apart the party need to understand that this is something they can influence. A truly democratic party culture would ensure that any challenge is dealt with seamlessly. A challenge for leadership does not have to be rancorous, bitter and disruptive. The argument for not having any internal challenge because of possible negative outcomes reminds me of the arguments used by dictators for postponing national elections due to "national security challenges", or other inopportune circumstances.

Peter and his supporters could say that a PNP under his leadership would be better able to mount a challenge to Bruce Golding, and would certainly attract more funding from the moneyed classes than Portia would. It is said that some of those who funded the JLP in the last election have become disappointed with the Golding administration and would support a Phillips-led PNP, but not a Portia-led one.

Besides, it is said that there is now a split in the ruling class and a split between Old and New Money. Some of the more established capitalists feel alienated from the Golding administration, which they see as being under undue influence from New Money elements. This division among big capitalists favours Peter Phillips, who is seen as intellectually competent, balanced and able to provide the national leadership needed at this time.

Critiquing the JLP

Notice how Peter has been critiquing the JLP, charging in his broadcast that "despite the election promises of the Jamaica Labour Party to expand the economy, create jobs and dramatically reduce crime it is obvious that the country is drifting". A new Messiah is in the making, and Peter has been marketing himself as the Answer to the Crisis. Listen for more of his attack on the JLP and his implicit appeal to those disillusioned with the Golding administration. (They won't be voting as delegates, but momentum from them could send the 'right' signals to delegates).

Peter could make a reasoned case that this is the best possible time to mount his challenge. With the leadership issue out of the way, money can flow to the party, his conciliatory personality would lead to a more unified party, and the country would not have any question about his ability succeed Golding and to run the country.

But Peter still faces an uphill task. He is part of a party culture that is cultic and which places loyalty ahead of logic. Many delegates are in no mood to entertain any logical, reasoned arguments as to why he is the best candidate. Dem still think him rude and out a order fi challenge Sista P. Him love power too much, they believe. The enormous love which Portia ge-nerates cannot be underestimated. Portia is a genuinely compassionate, empathetic, warm and endearing person, and these count for much in any leadership context.

This time around, too, she has some key parliamentarians supporting her, including Omar Davies. Some would say Omar and some others would much prefer to serve under Portia, whom they think would be more awed by them than a Peter Phillips. If Portia can hold her tongue, allow the level-headed Easton Douglas to have his way with the campaign and stick to the high ground she took in that excellent NEC presentation, she will be even more formidable this time around in the contest.

It's a pity that because of our political immaturity and infantile proclivities we have to be saying, "This campaign is not about personalities."

Excuse me, but you can't deal with leadership without dealing with personality or character issues. Certainly, these are delicate and explosively sensitive to discuss, but I want to know about the personal character and personality strengths and weaknesses of my potential leaders.

Political culture

I understand that in our political culture, and in this particular PNP race, the parties had better keep away from "discussing personalities", for we seem unable to discuss them without being personal, malicious and petty.

That it is widely felt that whoever loses this election would have to step down and their supporters victimised is proof positive that our party culture is intensely undemocratic. Hillary Clinton and her team exchanged sharp words with Barack Obama and his team, but when then race was over, the two teams came together to fight McCain. That's what a Democratic Party culture looks like.

We should not accept as a given that if Peter loses he, Maxine Henry-Wilson, Fitz Jackson and other valuable PNP leaders would have to step aside or be marginalised. And certainly, we cannot accept that Portia, with her significant political capital, must step aside after. PNP, prove me wrong that you have an undemocratic culture by how you behave from here on.

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be reached at ianboyne1@yahoo.com. Feedback may also be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com.