Dear Editor,
The Jamaica Labour Party could be categorised as a most self-destructive organisation. In fact, if we were to look at the 1990s we could draw the conclusion that the People's National Party won the majority of those elections by default.
Against this background, Everald Warmington's recent court action comes as no surprise to many who have lived their lives waiting for the proverbial "other shoe" to drop. However, I am struggling to determine what the issues are in this case. Mr Warmington lays claim to altruistic intentions of protecting the constitution of the party. Against what? Who is the victim in this case? The Area Council of which he is a part did things the "right" way. As such, he can be seen to be leading from example, and there are no stories of disenfranchisement emanating from the other camps. So then it would seem to me that regardless of his protestations to the contrary, this issue is a personal demon that he is exorcising through the court of public opinion.
Mr Warmington, in several media interviews, says that his service to the party spans some 44 years. If he is unable to exert the kind of influence that is required to bring about the constitutional adherence that he professes to seek, then it may be time for him to assess the kind of political character and reputation that he has built up over the years and seek to take the requisite steps to become the kind of representative that the party would actually take seriously.
Concurrently, if this issue is of such importance that the party hierarchy absolutely has to take notice, then what of using another messenger? I do not profess to be privy to what the constitution of the party contains. However, I am positive that it must have - built into it - a certain level of discretion that can be exercised by the secretariat. Is it that the member seems to have no regard for the consensus of the majority? If you are not able to achieve the outcome that you desire through advocacy, then it could be that this is an issue of consequence only to you.
The party leader, Andrew Holness, has indicated to those who are not able to put the party above self-interest that the time to get off the train is now. I was heartened by this. Regardless of your political affiliation, democracy works only when you have at least two strong political options from which to choose.
Dissent like Warmington's, which serves no legitimate instructive or progressive purpose, cannot be met with inclusion, regardless of how liberal or religious you are. Mr Warmington really needs to have a seat somewhere in the back of the class.In fact, he probably should have two. His ego needs a separate chair.
Nieka Vickers
Montego Bay, St James
niekababes@yahoo.com
Sit in the back of the class, Everald
-->
The Jamaica Labour Party could be categorised as a most self-destructive organisation. In fact, if we were to look at the 1990s we could draw the conclusion that the People's National Party won the majority of those elections by default.
Against this background, Everald Warmington's recent court action comes as no surprise to many who have lived their lives waiting for the proverbial "other shoe" to drop. However, I am struggling to determine what the issues are in this case. Mr Warmington lays claim to altruistic intentions of protecting the constitution of the party. Against what? Who is the victim in this case? The Area Council of which he is a part did things the "right" way. As such, he can be seen to be leading from example, and there are no stories of disenfranchisement emanating from the other camps. So then it would seem to me that regardless of his protestations to the contrary, this issue is a personal demon that he is exorcising through the court of public opinion.
Mr Warmington, in several media interviews, says that his service to the party spans some 44 years. If he is unable to exert the kind of influence that is required to bring about the constitutional adherence that he professes to seek, then it may be time for him to assess the kind of political character and reputation that he has built up over the years and seek to take the requisite steps to become the kind of representative that the party would actually take seriously.
Concurrently, if this issue is of such importance that the party hierarchy absolutely has to take notice, then what of using another messenger? I do not profess to be privy to what the constitution of the party contains. However, I am positive that it must have - built into it - a certain level of discretion that can be exercised by the secretariat. Is it that the member seems to have no regard for the consensus of the majority? If you are not able to achieve the outcome that you desire through advocacy, then it could be that this is an issue of consequence only to you.
The party leader, Andrew Holness, has indicated to those who are not able to put the party above self-interest that the time to get off the train is now. I was heartened by this. Regardless of your political affiliation, democracy works only when you have at least two strong political options from which to choose.
Dissent like Warmington's, which serves no legitimate instructive or progressive purpose, cannot be met with inclusion, regardless of how liberal or religious you are. Mr Warmington really needs to have a seat somewhere in the back of the class.In fact, he probably should have two. His ego needs a separate chair.
Nieka Vickers
Montego Bay, St James
niekababes@yahoo.com
Sit in the back of the class, Everald
-->