Ian Boyne

The media have missed the big story again. It is not the People's National Party's (PNP) gag order on the presidential and vice-presidential campaigns which is the most worrying threat to its democracy; but its cultic personality culture which, indeed, occasioned the gag order.

The predictable and self-serving howls about threat to press freedom and democracy which have come from the media are misguided. Party members and officials hurling insults at one another, boisterously cussing out one another and even drawing weapons in the process provide the kind of drama which is exciting to media. It pulls audiences to newscasts and provides for sensational newspaper headlines, which sell papers. The press would certainly have an interest in that continuing.

For the PNP secretariat to deprive them of all that excitement is cruel, especially so near to the actual contest. But the party secretariat has larger interests than providing titillation to the media, and though they have come around too late to it, it is better late than never.

For those in media who say I am trivialising an important issue with deep public implications, and that I am unforgivably reducing this issue to one of media sensationalism and self-interest, I say you have yet to make a reasoned case. Certainly, one could not depend on the two editorials in The Gleaner and The Observer on Thursday for serious analysis.

The Gleaner's began by quoting the Constitution and then follows with a glaring non sequitur. To say that choosing a leader of a political party represented in Parliament is not merely an internal matter - a truth - is not to say that the party has no right to set limits on how the candidates engage the media. The PNP's decision on the terms of engagement with the press is absolutely justifiable, and it must not be bullied by media interests - who have failed to advance rationally compelling arguments to prove otherwise.

Says The Gleaner editorial: "Political parties, therefore, can't presume to operate merely as private clubs that conduct their business behind closed doors. The wider community has a real and legitimate interest in their activities and they have a responsibility to conduct their affairs with transparency." Now, it does not appear to the editorial writer that there is absolutely no contradiction between that and what the party has done. The editorial fails to make that case.

This is what the PNP secretariat has decreed: Those candidates and their named spokespersons may only respond to "scurrilous allegations" by means of a press release authorised by the general secretary. This is no news blackout or a complete gag.

The party secretariat has also ruled that general press releases must only be issued with the approval of the general secretary or the chairman, and that party members, apart from candidates, spokespersons and the party chairman and secretariat, must not make comments on the elections. This is the application of internal party discipline, which every institution in a democratic society has the right to do.

The silly and self-serving arguments being advanced by media people and commentators just can't be sustained. My colleague Kevin O'Brien Chang's view that this is "never done in a mature democracy" and is some threat to democracy is the kind of extremist and uninformed generalisation to which many commentators are given.

MUCH ADO ABOUT NOTHING

Well-run institutions in mature democracies manage their communications. That is why you need a vigilant and free press to ferret out information which those institutions want to suppress. That is how democratic societies work. Because we have a media largely dependent on press releases and functions to get stories, any information management is fatal to them. But with a vigorous and vibrant press, with journalists having their ears to the ground and with good contacts, it does not matter what the PNP secretariat plans, news of nastiness will get out. And when it does, somebody has to reply and engage the media.

The entire furore over "gag on media" and "threat to democracy" is just grandstanding and much ado over nothing. Every institution in a free, democratic society has the right to decide which of its meetings are open to the press. So why don't we say that it is inherently undemocratic and "communistic" to hold PNP NEC meetings behind closed doors, or that the Monday night JLP Belmont Road meetings should be open to press, for we are in a democratic society in which the parties should not be run as private clubs?

Of course, use the democracy argument to the owners of The Gleaner and The Observer - who wield power in this society - and see what response you get!

In its self-righteous fulmination on Thursday ("Look what the PNP has come to") The Observer says, "the decision of party seniors to gag the media campaigns (sic) of the two contenders for the presidency of the party, could in no way square with the ideals of democracy that underpinned the quality of leadership provided by (Norman Manley and Michael Manley)."

Why not? Like The Gleaner's, this editorial fails spectacularly to make any reasoned case.

What is undeniable, and a larger point, is the tragedy of the state of the PNP which has led to this management of information flow. It is a sad and sickening commentary on the PNP that its leaders and their campaigns cannot conduct a decent electoral contest without the kind of nastiness, bitterness and divisive behaviour which have characterised this presidential campaign. This is what the media should be focusing on, not the fact that they have to do some work to get information on their own, rather than lazily waiting for some intemperate party official to misspeak, or for some emotionally indisciplined leader to tear down the opponent from the political platform.

There is a threat to democracy, indeed, in the PNP, and it comes not from the necessary and eminently justifiable attempt by the secretariat to cauterise the mayhem, nor even from the bogus groups of which Paul Burke has convincingly complained.

The PNP's larger problem is that it has lost its identity, its soul, and is manifesting all the features of the pre-Bruce Golding-led JLP, which had no firm ideological direction. The PNP has become a cult centred on loyalty to leader and not to a set of ideas or principles. This is the biggest threat to democracy in the PNP and the larger problem which the PNP poses to our democracy.

smear campaign

Indeed, contrary to what commentators and editorial writers have been saying without serious reflection, the PNP secretariat's decision to cool things down is in the long-term interest of democracy in this country. For if the PNP tears itself apart and fractures badly, Jamaican democracy suffers, as even its rival Bruce Golding said last weekend.

So if it takes what the media call a gag order to restrain forces inimical to democracy, that serves the democratic cause and, therefore, the PNP secretariat is acting to preserve, not threaten, democracy. The continued fighting, brawls and smear campaign would seriously imperil one of our major political parties and leave this country with no choice but a one-party state. This is what the commentators have missed in their hasty generalisations and aversion to nuance.

The Observer is right in the following: "What needs to be controlled and managed are the boiling tempers and the nasty rhetoric that have come to characterise the campaign." And that comes because there is a strongly held view that the party leader should not be challenged, and that only when she feels it fit to give up the crown should there be a change. I love Portia dearly and undyingly and would never disrespect her, but we have to elevate principles over personalities.

The view that no one should dare challenge Portia for leadership; that the move is inherently ungracious, 'bad-minded' and even 'wicked' is deadly to the democratic ethos. In fact, the very name of the Portia group is offensive and highlights the arrogance and intolerant spirit of the group - Team PNP. Hello! Peter Phillips and his group are part of the PNP. What right has any group to arrogate to itself the very name PNP?

This says it all: Those who challenge the leader are outside the cult; they are not orthodox and are, therefore, guilty of heresy. Effectively, Peter Phillips and his group are already excommunicated, disfellowshipped, outcasts - even before the election results. This is the spirit which is a threat to democracy.

No one has to sell me the virtues of Portia Simpson Miller. I have worked closely with her and I know what it is to love her and how hypnotic that love can be. I know how she inspires loyalty. But we must never let love blind us to truth. That is how destructive religious cults are bred.

PNP members with a strong democratic ethos should say, "Peter is really foolish, misguided and selfish to mount a challenge at this time but, hey, that's his right. Let us just make sure we thrash him at the polls in such a way that he never tries that again." And Portia is likely to whip him, indeed. There is no need to demonise Peter or to ostracise his supporters. Don't get me wrong. The bitterness is not on one side.

eager to rush to the media

The Phillips camp is always eager to rush to the media with charges and countercharges and I guess they feel embattled and that is their cry for help. But they need to learn emotional mastery.

Both campaigns have behaved dishonourably and should be penalised by the party secretariat. And Portia's remarks about vote-buying were most regrettable, especially her open encouragement to take bribes. Portia has to learn to control her tongue.

Portia is likely to win this weekend. Interestingly, the fact that the JLP has ended its first year unspectacularly has considerably helped her chances of holding on to the PNP presidency. Her poor people's platform is resonating with people, and especially with the PNP base, and the view that she can't beat Bruce has lost some strength.

The fact that the JLP seems more beatable by Portia today could be the final nail in Peter's coffin.

People's National Party General Secretary Peter Bunting (right) addresses the media on the nomination and acceptance forms for the presidential and vice-presidential contests, slated for the party's annual conference. Looking on is party chairman Robert Pickersgill.- Norman Grindley/Deputy Chief Photographer

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