Congratulations are in order to Andrew Holness and the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) for winning the February 2016 General Election.

Issues may cause a swing in a party’s favour, but it is organisation that makes a party able to benefit from the swing.

Elections are won on election day and the People’s National Party’s (PNP) organisation had its glitches on election day. Not that all of the blame should be laid on the secretariat. There was internal divisiveness, and it is known to me that the PNP General Secretary Paul Burke was undermined by some who are angry about the strict discipline that he has brought to the headquarters. In times gone by, going back to the days of Norman Manley, candidates were dropped, and it was either accepted or they ran as independents. This time around, the PNP has had the same sort of divisiveness as has happened in the JLP.

Nevertheless, in the four constituencies where there was internal disharmony — three where the candidate was changed and one where the candidate was retained despite a negative selection vote — three won their seats, namely Evon Redman in St Elizabeth North Eastern; Victor White in Trelawny Northern; and Dr Lynvale Bloomfield in Portland Eastern. Of the four, only Imani Duncan-Price lost.

Of course, the official reasons for the PNP’s loss are that the public was impressed with Andrew Holness’s 10-point plan, and that the party did not take part in the debates. But, trust me, in the PNP’s post-mortem they will be addressing what happened on the ground on election day. Not even football coaches when interviewed on TV after losing a football match will state all of what they felt went wrong. That is for the “office”, when they start shouting at players for not kicking the ball correctly.

For several decades it has been mooted that there should be a coalition government in Jamaica. In 1949, the JLP won the general election while the PNP won the popular vote by a margin of 3,510. Of the 32 seats available, the JLP won 17, the PNP won 13 and there were two Independent candidates who also won.

This was the first time that a coalition was suggested in Jamaica, but Sir Alexander Bustamante said that he “was not having any socialists on the government bench”. Since that time, many Jamaicans have said that there are efficient legislators on both sides, so why not a coalition government? But at the time there were great ideological differences between the parties, so a coalition could not work then.

However, today there is not much difference between the parties, so why not have a coalition government? It would help to ease the tension between supporters of both parties. And if the two parties do well in a coalition they might very well decide to unite as one party. If that happens, a new party could well be formed and become Jamaica’s second political party.

But that is not likely to happen at all. There are people in the JLP who have waited for years to be a minister of government and would be very angry if it went otherwise. What is good for the nation is not necessarily good for political parties. Indeed, what is likely to happen is that if there is cause for a by-election on the Government side, then Andrew Holness would call a fresh general election. Why have a by-election that might result in a new Government with a one-seat majority when a general election would give the Government a better chance?

All of these people who talk about fixed election dates do not understand that the system of governance has to change from the Westminster model for that to be effective. This is what Lynden Pindling did in The Bahamas in 1967. His party won by one seat, and with the death of one MP he simply called a new election and won by a landslide. But in Jamaica that would have to depend on whether the JLP maintains its popular edge or loses it. Nevertheless, with a one-seat majority, no MP will even have time to go to the restroom. And the ministers cannot travel as often, although travel is necessary. As Holness will find out — if he has not already — many of these nations or financial institutions want to see the prime minister, not his emissaries. So all of the criticisms of outgoing Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller’s travelling will now seem like foolishness.

Even if it had turned out that the PNP won a majority of seats and formed the Government, it is quite clear that the JLP won the popular vote. When the reverse of this situation happened in 1949, the disappointed PNP accepted it as part of the Westminster model. But I doubt if the JLP would sit down and take the situation lightly. So, had it turned out that way, they might have pushed for proportional representation ,which I have been arguing for years is the way we should go.

I have argued for years that there should be a mixture of constituency representation and proportional representation. Either we have that or we have a separate ballot for prime minister and another for constituency representation. But all constitutional reform has been put on hold, primarily because the JLP refused to allow such Bills to be passed in the Senate unless there was a referendum on the Caribbean Court of Justice. Such a Bill needs two-thirds of both houses, but the Government has one less than two-thirds of the Senate.

It is one thing for the PNP to have refused to debate the JLP unless certain conditions were met as they did in the recently concluded election campaign. It is quite another to hold the entire country to ransom because a referendum might suit one of the parties politically. I do not know of any country where the matter of a court was put to all of the people to vote on. The only thing a referendum would do is to test the strength of the parties. However, the constitutional change will not come yet because there is no discrepancy between votes and seats as happened in 1949.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com