PJ Patterson is for unity
IN AN article by one Ann-Marie Campbell, headlined ‘Step aside, PJ’, which was published in this newspaper on September 27, 2019, P.J. Patterson was accused of dividing the People’s National Party (PNP).
In the article, Campbell claimed that Patterson, while addressing delegates of the party at the private session of the recently concluded annual conference, said: “Those who want to turn Peter (Phillips) can’t win into a self-fulfilling prophecy, step aside. Those who want to lose, sit down. Those who want to win, stand up.”
My checks have revealed that no one with the name Ann-Marie Campbell attended the delegates’ conference to which Ms Campbell makes reference.
Ms Campbell, therefore, ought to have informed readers of her article that she either heard of the comments or read it somewhere, rather than give the unsuspecting reader the impression that she was present at the conference when Patterson spoke.
The danger in quoting comments without understanding the context in which they are made or identifying the source from which the comments are taken, as Ms Campbell, who describes herself as a marketing communications practitioner, has done, is that it can be given the wrong interpretation by the reader.
FALLING IN LINE
Mr Patterson addressed the delegates’ conference for about 20 minutes and spent almost his entire time speaking about the need for, and the importance of, unity, now that the election was over. He stated that the best interest of the party would be served by all persons falling in line, in order to give the duly elected leader, Peter Phillips, a real chance to lead the party to victory in the next national election.
He made the observation that quite a number of persons who had not supported Phillips had already, in the true traditions of the party, after an internal election, fallen in line and had agreed to give Phillips their full support. Patterson, however, being the observant person that he is, was also aware of the fact that there were quite a few members who were still acting and behaving as if the campaign was not over.
Directing his comments at those persons, he said that if they were not prepared to give of their support to the leader, now that the question of leadership has been decided, they are to step aside and allow the democratic process of the party to follow its due course.
Patterson, the elder statesman of the party, who has served its interest for 61 of its 81 years of existence, is best placed to determine what will divide or unify the party.
During his leadership of the PNP and Government, he used most of his political capital to bring about unity at all levels in the party and in the country.
It is of importance to note that during the campaign, Mr Patterson made no public comments that could have led to the view that he was supporting either candidate.
Once the campaign was over, however, and Phillips was returned as the leader, he figured, and one cannot deny him that right, given his service to the party, that he had a duty to help with the process of healing.
Campbell, while giving the impression that she is for unity, and that she has the PNP’s interest at heart, revealed her real motive for accusing Mr Patterson of trying to divide the PNP. She gave it away when, in the said article, she wrote:“Patterson held this country at ransom for 18 long years.”
This assertion by Campbell has long been the mantra of some of the spokespersons and supporters of the current Government.
Campbell’s real aim, therefore, is not the desire for unity as she would want us to believe, but, instead, to keep the party divided so that it will never come to power to hold, as she asserts, the country to ransom. As the PNP strives for unity, it needs to be aware of the wolves who are parading in sheep’s clothing.