Political leadership and candidate selection processes are designed to be competitive. Wrangling is expected, encouraged. That's how you test candidates, test leaders, develop positions and policy.
Why it's so scandalous when the Opposition has it, just as every political party in the world does, is beyond me. This isn't news. It's normal.
I suppose that because the Opposition is multi-racial that these things are prescribed a racial component, but that speaks more to the prejudices and myopia of the critics than anything else.
In a broader sense I'm convinced that part of the problem of the past few years for both parties, but particularly the Opposition, has been too centralised a system of candidate selection.
The PLP's opening of seats to primaries is a good move. It creates some short term headaches and can be messy, but it ultimately produces stronger candidates who have been tested.
One of the issues which contributed to the problems the UBP had was a highly centralised candidate selection process that saw weak candidates, and in some cases political opportunists, parachuted into seats without putting in the work beforehand. Primaries were avoided as they can be contentious, but in the long run I'm convinced they are an important method to select and develop future candidates and leaders.
A robust leadership contest in the OBA is fun for reporters to write about as a soap opera, and fills column inches, but it's exactly what should happen. This is how parties evolve, peope evolve, positons evolve, and the country moves ahead.