Dear Editor,
In light of the recent revelation that Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) senators had to sign an undated "pre-nuptial" agreement stating that they would not vote with the government on the Caribbean Court of Justice being made the final court of appeal, I want to ask if Andrew Holness is a transformational leader, as he purports to be, or did he pull off the biggest con there is?
In order to win the JLP leadership race, Mr Holness sold to the delegates, and by extension the Jamaican electorate, that he was a leader that would transform the party and bring a new style of leadership. But if what he did with the Senate is anything to go by, I am going to say that we have to be careful that this kind of stunt is never pulled on the nation should he become prime minister. In using these undated letters to dismiss Messrs Tufton and Williams, he has acted akin to a 'three-card man'.
The question before us at this time is, what of the other senators who have remained silent amidst all these criticims of this undated letter? Are they going to continue to be in the Senate with a noose around their neck that could be used to choke them if they deviate from any of the party's positions and vote with their conscience?
This does not make for good governance, and their capacity to enter into informed debate and constitutional review has been severely weakened. It is therefore in their best interest to resign from the senate as they cannot be trusted to debate issues above political loyalty.
Holness has lost the trust of the Jamaican people with this underhanded move. He must therefore come to us and explain the rationale behind what he did, if there is any, other than a trust issue. He must also explain to us if this will be the modus operandi going forward as a transformational leader.
Ralston Chamberlain
ralston.chamberlain@alum.utoronto.ca
Transformational leadership vs 'Anancyism'
-->
In light of the recent revelation that Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) senators had to sign an undated "pre-nuptial" agreement stating that they would not vote with the government on the Caribbean Court of Justice being made the final court of appeal, I want to ask if Andrew Holness is a transformational leader, as he purports to be, or did he pull off the biggest con there is?
In order to win the JLP leadership race, Mr Holness sold to the delegates, and by extension the Jamaican electorate, that he was a leader that would transform the party and bring a new style of leadership. But if what he did with the Senate is anything to go by, I am going to say that we have to be careful that this kind of stunt is never pulled on the nation should he become prime minister. In using these undated letters to dismiss Messrs Tufton and Williams, he has acted akin to a 'three-card man'.
The question before us at this time is, what of the other senators who have remained silent amidst all these criticims of this undated letter? Are they going to continue to be in the Senate with a noose around their neck that could be used to choke them if they deviate from any of the party's positions and vote with their conscience?
This does not make for good governance, and their capacity to enter into informed debate and constitutional review has been severely weakened. It is therefore in their best interest to resign from the senate as they cannot be trusted to debate issues above political loyalty.
Holness has lost the trust of the Jamaican people with this underhanded move. He must therefore come to us and explain the rationale behind what he did, if there is any, other than a trust issue. He must also explain to us if this will be the modus operandi going forward as a transformational leader.
Ralston Chamberlain
ralston.chamberlain@alum.utoronto.ca
Transformational leadership vs 'Anancyism'
-->