We have a soft spot for public servants, especially the ones who palpably demonstrate commitment and energy in their quest to improve the lot of their compatriots. Mr Andrew Holness, the education minister, is one such. But he has the flaw of too many politicians.

He must understand, if even in retrospect, the dangerous road he has taken in telling public servants he believes are not carrying out government policy directives to “do the honourable thing and leave their office instead of waiting on the Government to ask them to leave”.

Mr Holness seems to have, hopefully for only a brief moment, found himself intoxicated with power. And like anyone in a drunken stupor, he ran the risk of undoing, in one fell swoop, all the wonderful work he has done in the education ministry.

We’ll go light on him this time, because it is our considered view that he is one of the brightest stars in the Bruce Golding constellation and we have no doubt that the education ministry has been the better for his presence in such a critical portfolio.

Given time, men like Mr Holness will leave a mark that future men will acknowledge, and it is because he is honest and determined to succeed in a place where success remains a fleeting illusion that we must cherish him. This nation is fortunate that we have in him, someone who is not afraid to be inspired by the work of his predecessor, Mrs Maxine Henry-Wilson.

But if he isn’t more careful, he will himself short-circuit all this potential for greatness and excellent work.

Mr Holness shouldn’t need us to tell him that public servants must keep a suitable distance from the political directorate. They carry on from administration to administration, keeping the gates. They sew together the various strands of the bureaucracy. It is why, in their infinite wisdom, the founding fathers made it so that no minister should be able to fire a public servant.

We, obviously, could never be saying that there won’t be the odd, mistaken public servant who is so opposed to the new administration, that he or she would take shortcuts in implementing new policies originated by the new leaders. But, on balance, the work of public servants don’t change drastically with a new administration.

There is hardly any revolutionary programme that is going so good to ensure the administration gets an extended stay in office, that a die-hard opponent must feel the need to sabotage it. Imagine, too, how much collusion is going to be needed to bring that sabotage about.

But assuming that there are some like that, Mr Holness can’t generalise in that way. He must spell out the exact details of how he knows that there are such public servants. He must provide clear evidence of their inaction and opposition to policy directives and justification for the conclusion that it has something to do with the new administration.

Once there is clear evidence, he must then act through the well-established channel — the Public Service Commission — especially to deal with such public servants. In any event, it would be foolhardy to expect them on their own to “do the honourable thing and leave”. So what if they don’t?

Mr Holness slipped up on this one… badly. But we’ll put it down to youthful exuberance, a category in which he won’t be alone.