Curtis Ward | Manipulating democratic process is morally corrupt

The fact that the law is at fault should not give rise to manipulation of the democratic process. It is neither “gamesmanship” nor “strategic” as some commentators seem to believe that it is. The truth is that this level of political manipulation is anathema to the democratic process. It is morally wrong. And it is corrupt. It should not be dismissed as mere partisan politics or merely taking advantage of the political system. The question is, whose interest does it serve?

The actions of political leaders should be measured by only one standard: whether they carry out the intent of the constitution and the laws of the country to serve the interests of all the people. The legal fundamentals of a nation are not to serve the personal interests of any political leader or political party. Thus, weaknesses in the law or the constitution that allow self-serving political manipulation of the democratic process must be fixed. No future prime minister should have the sole power to determine when Jamaicans vote for their representatives of choice. Period.

This political shuffling is characteristic of autocratic systems of government not of democracies. Democracy is not a game. It should not be treated as a three-card hustle!

Both political parties have, at some point in Jamaica’s political history, used these weaknesses in the country’s legal framework to advance the narrow self-serving interests of respective political parties. Being legal does not make it right. It is not a reason to excuse it. As time passes, one might expect more political maturity and greater understanding of the inherent dangers of giving one individual such power over the democratic process. This is an area in which civil society has fallen short. Voices of dissent appear to be muted. The people’s support or opposition rests solely on partisan politics. So one must ask: Where are the many who are concerned when such political manipulation takes place? That includes the free press. The silence, as is often said, is deafening as it applies to the autocratic nature of such actions.

Is it that members of civil society, Jamaicans at home and abroad, fear being labelled as political or party-political and afraid to speak out in great numbers? If this is the case, Jamaica loses claim to being a mature democratic country. The people have surrendered to a form of autocracy, which does not bode well for the country’s future.

OUTER LIMITS

Constitutional and statutory provisions provide for the outer limits in time for the calling of elections. But as is well known, there is no limitation in time as to how soon after an election that a new election may be called or for a parliamentary vacancy to be filled after it occurs. The country’s prime minister has exclusive power to decide. But having the power does not give a blanket licence for immoral or corrupt use of the power. It should not be an alien concept for the public to hold political leaders to high moral standards and to expect them to be incorruptible in the exercise of state power. It comes down to what Jamaicans are satisfied with and which principles and standards we are prepared to defend and protect.

This brings me to the so-called constitutional-reform process. When it was first announced, it appeared on its face as an opportunity whose time was long overdue. Although the depths of its undertaking were not clear and its composition and leadership were suspect of partisan manipulation, there was hope for meaningful consultations and public discussions to better guide its undertaking. There were other failed starts in the past that did not advance to any measurable outcomes due to political party politics. Neither were these attempts, though well-intentioned, strategically established to deal with the subject of reform comprehensively.

Many are frustrated with the current process and are asking if the process should be restarted yet again or if it is possible to resurrect the current process. Those who have been following the process know very well that the process has been manipulated, was not intended from the very outset to be comprehensive, and the political leadership of the process is playing a political game. The process needs to be refreshed, to use an Internet phrase. But how?

Neither of the two major political parties — the Jamaica Labour Party and the People’s National Party — trusts each other. That is an understatement. Neither wishes to cede one iota of political advantage to the other. There is ample evidence for each side to mistrust the other. A central question then is whether that paradigm can shift away from political manipulation of the body politic to trusting the Jamaican people. This will only happen if both political parties agree to make this a reality or only if civil society is sufficiently aroused to force change. It is difficult to believe either will happen given the political environment in Jamaica. But there may never be a better time for this to happen. And no better subject to test this hypothesis than on constitutional reform.

POLITICAL MATURITY

Jamaica, after some 62-plus years of political independence, should be now at a stage of political maturity to take this bold step that has evaded the nation in the past. And the following recommendation may not be new. There is need for a non-partisan independent constitutional-reform commission comprising members selected across civil society — including the human-rights community, the legal fraternity, the private sector, and the diaspora — and led by a chair selected from the upper echelons of the judiciary. Both political parties would be allowed to have an equal number of representatives, but they would be outnumbered by civil society representatives.

The votes and decision-making process should not be manipulatable by either of the two political parties. And, most importantly, while consensus is desirable in the decision-making process of the newly constituted commission, decisions should be by super majority and veto-proof by representatives of the political parties. The selection of members and of the chair must be uncomplicated and transparent. Perhaps there is a non-partisan role, as should be expected, for the governor general in the selection of the chair.

It is up to the people of Jamaica to determine the type of future they really want. One in which political parties are allowed to manipulate them, as is currently the status quo, or one in which the people have a voice. A voice that politicians would be bound to heed or ignore at their political peril. It may be naive to believe change is possible, but change begins with each of us.

Curtis Ward is former ambassador of Jamaica to the United Nations, with special responsibility for security council affairs. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.