If you had carefully studied Jamaica’s macro and micro economic history over the last four decades, you would have realized that had the last government not put in place the appropriate free market mechanism, the JA economy would have collapsed by 1990. Neither a fixed nor a US pegged rate could have saved JA (i.e., Keynesian thinking). However, I detect a “throw back” to the 1970’s in the article and comments that prevents acknowledging change from 1989 to 2007.

Change always happens whether we acknowledge it or not.

I don’t buy the argument that it was the Jamaican electorate that has resisted change. This makes it sound as if Jamaicans are stupid and they are not. What has happened over the years is that the political leadership has failed to seriously, objectively and thoughtfully address the issues affecting Jamaica. Instead, Jamaicans have been fed a steady diet of populism, propaganda and pablum and the end result is that Jamaica is worse off now than any of its other English-speaking Caribbean neighbors. Finally, if the PNP government from 1989 to 2007 had done such a good job economically how is it Jamaica could only average barely 1 percent economic growth annually in that time span? This when other English-speaking Caribbean islands were averaging anywhere from 3-5 percent annual economic growth in that time span.

The new generation of PNP leaders, including Phillips and Davies, as opposed to the JLP’s neo-conservative next generation, applied modern monetary policy versus classical fiscal policy and moved Jamaica from Seaga’s managed float to a freely floating exchange rate system. However, it was the JA electorate who resisted change that “turned the ship around” as we got near the coast line.

The PNP’s error was thinking our nation needed a mother figure even though it made great strides toward economic independence and adult self-determination. Error, when recognized, can be a driver towards change and progress. As long as the inner party conflict is constructive and not destructive, the PNP can come out stronger and successful when the next general election is called just as the JLP had to reinvent itself after the Gang of Five and NDM experiments.

Phillips and Davies, at the right time and position, will assert their leadership role that helped to transform the PNP and change the economic course of our nation. However, the suggestion that a democratically elected member of parliament can be simply removed by the party leader as can be done in firing an employee of a private business, reeks of authoritarian/dictatorial/totalitarian thinking and a lack of a deep understanding of the democratic process and organizational change.

A prime minister can change his/her cabinet but has no legitimate power to remove those duly elected to represent their communities. A prudent PM or lLeader of the opposition will build consensus and develop a team after studying the skills and abilities of his/her cabinet or shadow cabinet. It should be obvious that both Bruce and Portia know their power bases and can withstand challenges to their leadership at this time. However, it is the maturity of the JA electorate that we count on to choose the best representatives for our government.