Editorial | Where’s the Ombudsman?

This newspaper finds surprising and disquieting the continued silence of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) on the several recent incidents, as well as provocative statements by political party officials that may have crossed the line of what is permissible under Jamaica’s Code of Political Conduct.

In the circumstances, we can only conclude that either the ECJ has greater tolerance of, or a looser interpretation than most people of what is acceptable behaviour in national political discourse, or that it is yet to embrace its role as the Political Ombudsman, which was ill-advisedly passed to it by Parliament in February.

Or the cynics might have another interpretation. The ECJ, with respect to the Ombudsman portfolio, has dropped its hand as a quiet mark of protest and to demonstrate the absurdity of Parliament’s decision.

The Gleaner, of course, doesn’t accept the latter explanation, with its potential of undermining much of the good work the ECJ has done over more than four decades in helping to build the integrity of, and confidence in, Jamaica’s electoral system.

Until February, on the eve of the local government elections, the ECJ was responsible solely for the mechanics of Jamaica’s electoral system. By and large, it proposed the rules (which Parliament enacted) for the conduct of elections, and it employed and supervised the staff that administers the process. Generally, the ECJ did a good job at this.

Separately, the Political Ombudsman policed the ethical conduct of politicians and political parties.

But, with the Government’s decision to subsume the office of the Political Ombudsman into the ECJ, which acts “indivisibly” in this role, the nine-member ECJ was thrust into a new realm.

Which means that the ECJ, which includes two members each from the two main political parties, also has a legal obligation to oversee, and ensure adherence to, the existing Code of Political Conduct.

That code commits political parties and politicians to rejecting use of violence or intimidation as expressions of political support, as well as the repudiation of behaviour that could lead to confrontations between political rivals and their supporters.

Specifically, the code prohibits party officials, “including platform speakers”, from making statements which are:

* Inflammatory and likely to incite others to confrontation and violence;

* constitute slander and libel; and

* malicious in reference to opposing candidates, their family and party officials.

Additionally, under the Political Ombudsman Act, the Ombudsman is empowered to act on complaints and to independently conduct investigations into behaviour which he believes “constitutes or is likely to constitute a breach of any agreement, code or arrangement in force between parties, or is likely to prejudice good relations between the supporters of various political parties”.

RACIST TROPES

Apparently, there was nothing that happened during February’s municipal vote that was of concern to the ECJ/Political Ombudsman – or nothing worthy of a formal public statement, even to say that all was well. But the ECJ was new at the job.

Just shy of a week ago, four by-elections were held in Jamaica – two for vacant seats in the national parliament; the other two for seats in municipal councils.

On the eve of the vote for the seat in the St Thomas municipal council there was a shooting incident in the vicinity of the home of one of the candidates. There were also claims that campaign paraphernalia of the People’s National Party (PNP) were torn down.

Officials from both the PNP and Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) condemned those alleged incidents. On election day, people connected to both sides claimed there were attempts at vote-buying, which is illegal.

In the parish of Clarendon, in the second municipal election for the Aenon Town division, there were claims of voter intimidation, which the election monitors, Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE), brought to the attention of the “authorities”, who responded.

The Political Ombudsman has commented on none of these events.

At the JLP’s annual conference on Sunday, Juliet Cuthbert-Flynn, an MP and junior minister for national security, employed, not for the first time, racist tropes against the PNP’s leader, Mark Golding, a white Jamaican whose father was an Englishman.

That behaviour resides not only with Ms Cuthbert-Flynn. It is a staple of the notoriously rude and mercurial Everald Warmington, a JLP MP and former minister.

The Political Ombudsman has been quiet, too, on that matter.

REVIEW OF THE CODE

No one expects the ECJ/Political Ombudsman to intervene in every debate, disagreement or utterance that leaves someone’s feelings hurt, or that it should attempt to turn politics into a Sunday afternoon Mothers’ Union tea party. However, we, like others, fear that, left unchecked and unattended, recently racially charged statements and other untoward behaviour could lead to a return to the bad old days when Jamaican politics was often akin, too literally, to a blood sport.

It was in this context that we previously commented on the politically targeting of six of this newspaper’s journalists, with nonsensical claims that their reporting was aimed at undermining the Government. In reality, the assault was tantamount to placing targets on the backs of those reporters.

We called then for the ECJ/Political Ombudsman to begin a review of the Code of Political Conduct to explicitly acknowledge the place of a free press in a free and democratic society, and its role in advancing political discourse.

The ECJ has said nothing publicly on this matter.

Jamaica faces a general election in less than a year. The political temperature is destined to grow hotter. Tempers will fray.

The Political Ombudsman is to bring a moral and ethical voice to this environment, helping to rein in people’s worst impulses.