Robert Pickersgill, the chairman of the People's National Party (PNP), is not perceived to have a mind that is deeply curious about matters of policy or ideas of governance, although it could just be that he keeps that side of his persona hidden.

So, Mr Pickersgill would not be taken aback to know that many people are surprised at his proposal last week for a change to his party's constitution to provide its president with protection from the possibility of annual challenges. He suggests that the leader be elected for a minimum of three years. The chairman's proposal is, so far, merely verbal, unbacked by the weight of "facts ... history and ... logic", which Mr Pickersgill claims normally attend his interventions.

Even Mr Pickersgill would, or should have been aware, that the timing of his proposal, in the early aftermath of a leadership contest in which Portia Simpson Miller retained the presidency, would be seen as a move against the defeated challenger, Dr Peter Phillips, and supporters of his candidacy. Moreover, as this newspaper suggested on Friday, another pointed inference is an attempt to construct a protective wall around Mrs Simpson Miller.

But assuming that Mr Pickersgill's proposal is high-minded and pure, aimed at protecting the party from the stresses of an excess of democracy, someone with finer-tuned political skills would have appreciated that in the current context, the messenger was inappropriately chosen and ... again, his timing was poor.

The 'dust' might have been allowed to settle from that bitter contest and the leader afforded a chance to fully engage the process of healing, which she has stressed is her mission.

Not surprising

It is not surprising that Dr Phillips, who believes Mr Pickersgill's proposal is "contrary to fundamental principles of accountability and democracy", decided to stay away from this weekend's work segment of the party's conference. Any discussion of the proposal, Dr Phillips suggests, would inflame passions "leading to disruption, abuse, or worse".

It was not enough for Mr Pickersgill to say his proposal was not on the agenda, or to give a reminder of the 60-day notice required for substantive issues before they are taken. He must have been aware that having made his statement on the eve of the conference, the matter would be fresh in the minds of the delegates on the day of the event, having currency on the floor, even if it was not debated. Whatever may be people's views on Dr Phillips' decision to stay away from the conference, we agree with his conclusion of having been placed in an "invidious position" if he was to discuss the matter dispassionately.

Portia's job made harder

It seems that Mr Pickersgill forgot, or in his manoeuvrings, discounted, that Peter Phillips gained the support of over 45 per cent of the delegates in the leadership contest and that while there is no questioning of Mrs Simpson Miller's mandate, feelings remain raw. As we have suggested before, the PNP president will, in the circumstance, better enhance her legitimacy by the quality of her leadership than by legislative fiat.

Mr Pickersgill has not only made her job harder, but assuming he acted on his own, single-handedly, has reignited divisive tensions in the party. We believe that the matter of period tenure, including term limits, are matters worth debating, but students of organisational politics know that timing is critical.

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.