GLEANER EDITORIAL - The PNP's grasp at decency

She did so in an opaque and convoluted fashion, but Portia Simpson Miller, the Opposition leader, eventually exerted her authority and caused her People's National Party (PNP) to exercise good sense.

So, the debate on the Charter of Rights is proceeding, with an unequivocal pledge this week from Mrs Simpson Miller that "the Opposition will support this bill".

That, in the final analysis, is good enough for us, even if we did not quite grasp the argument and logic by which she arrived at this position. But, as they say, all's well that ends well.

We consider Mrs Simpson Miller's position important for another, more fundamental reason. It is a declaration that political action doesn't have to be founded only in opportunism, and that what is important in the end is doing what is right.

And, by any measure, the Charter of Rights is right. It is an attempt to codify and enumerate in relatively simple language the rights and freedoms that are constitutionally guaranteed to the Jamaican citizen, and to narrow the capacity of the state to abrogate those rights.

17 years of talking

It has taken 17 years of talking and debate, mostly between the political classes and the intellectual elite, to reach this stage of having the charter debated by the legislature. When the bill is passed - it requires the support of two-thirds of the members of Parliament - it will require another three months, as is the case with all amendments to entrenched provisions of the Constitution, before it becomes law. All of this is after having to wait three months after the bill is laid before it can be debated.

Yet, for something that the PNP considered important to advancing the rights of the Jamaican people, it was willing to play fast to gain a puny political advantage. The party's spokesman on justice, Mr A.J. Nicholson, sought to link support for the bill to another constitutional amendment to extend the five-year window, imposed by the Privy Council, for the execution of someone convicted of a capital crime before the verdict becomes cruel and inhuman punishment. Then there was that cynical and opportunistic echo in the House by Mr Robert Pickersgill, the party's chairman, that threatened to derail things.

Expecting fulfilment

The party has now retreated, accepting, Mrs Simpson Miller suggested, that the prime minister will fulfil his undertaking at the time when Parliament voted to retain capital punishment, to find a mechanism to deal with the practical problems imposed by the five-year deadline for executions imposed by the law lords. This important element of the business can proceed, and not be subject to tawdry barter.

The cynics might claim otherwise, but we prefer to believe that Mrs Simpson Miller has come to recognise that leadership is not only about petty political calculations, or giving your opponent a bloody nose.

It, first, ought to be, especially for those who would assume the management of the State and wield great authority over people's lives, about promoting the interest of those they pledge to serve.

Having recovered from a sorry lapse and a display of poor judgement, Mrs Simpson Miller and her party have hopefully learned a salient lesson.