Election,citizens and their representatives

At least one published dissenter is objecting that the date trespasses upon Jamaican culture going back to the Christmas holiday which slaves got and used for 'merriment'. But the children of the freed slaves have already converted the election campaign into a carnival of Jamaican culture, with everything from the haute couture and music of dancehall to revival-type meetings all held together by the high tech of the 21st century and the sound of South African vuvuzelas.

Nomination day, on the birthday of the president of the People's National Party (PNP), went by largely "uneventfully", in the word of the director of elections, in a country used to and expecting election violence. But the tripartite (JLP, PNP and independent members) Electoral Commission of Jamaica has introduced game-changing regulations. Violence and electoral fraud have been made huge disincentives for any candidate. The Constituted Authority has been duly activated and will void the vote in any constituency where violence, intimidation and fraud have been noted.

rented for T-shirt and bus ride

The massive crowds turning out, appropriately decked out in 'free' party attire for a 10-minute nomination exercise for their candidate, speak volumes to the state of the country 173 years after full freedom from slavery and 49 years of Independence. Large numbers of Jamaicans are unemployed, underemployed, or doing low-productivity jobs or hustling from which they can easily skip a day to become part of crowds rented for as little as a free T-shirt and bus ride. The politics they support so exuberantly hasn't been a big success for them.

A great deal of campaign financing must go into clothing, feeding and transporting the troops. The prime minister, at the launch event of the anti-corruption National Integrity Action Limited two Fridays ago, declared that he was in support of disclosure of contributions to political parties. But Mr Holness hastened to point out the obvious: that disclosure will mean a drying up of contributions in the political environment of this country.

So state financing of political parties and election campaigns must go with disclosure. State financing with sensible caps would put the brakes on the splurging on crowd mobilisation and on over-advertising and push candidates more into town halls and on to the pavement.

Members of the intelligentsia - I do not get the sense that this is a matter of concern for the ordinary voter - have been pushing for a fixed election date. The Golding resignation and all that flowed from it, including the prospect of an early return to power by the PNP, which stridently called for him to pack his bags and go, gives pause for second thought. It seems to me perfectly sensible to retain the option of an election referendum on the performance (or lack of it) of a government within term.

The governing JLP last Wednesday released a 28-page statement of achievements, 2007-2011, "despite", the party says, "the worst global economic crisis in modern times". The PNP, which released its manifesto of promises on the same day, should follow suit and state its achievements for 18 1/2 years in government, 1989-2007. I and many other issues-and-performance citizens/voters strongly prefer reviews and debates of achievements over the promises of manifestos.

golden opportunity to probe track records

I am forced by deadline to write ahead of the Shaw-Phillips debate on finance and the economy. The debates offer a golden opportunity to probe track records and to use them in assessing the credibility of promises projected. Not much is more important to Jamaican citizens/voters, too many of whom have too much free time to run up and down with election candidates and too little money, than the state and management of the economy and the country's finances.

The ECJ has recommended, and Parliament has approved, three additional seats, taking the number from 60 to 63. I am very much in favour of a large Parliament. A large Parliament is good for democracy at both the level of constituency representation and in having a substantial backbench after the executive is pulled from among the representatives. I am not much in favour of a complete separation of executive (the Cabinet) and legislature (the Parliament), which is much touted by, again, mostly some members of the intelligentsia, as a cure for corruption and inefficiency in government.

It makes a lot of sense to have ministers who have to face constituents. And, in any case, when a single party controls both executive and legislature, as is most often the case in presidential systems, we're back where we started. And when the same party does not control both arms of government, the hobbling of government from gridlock, or just mean partisanship, is a real and present danger.

And what do MPs, 63 or more, do? This newspaper devoted Page 2 of last Sunday's edition to its Council of Wise Ones calling for job descriptions for MPs, with the paper noting "anyone can apply", "no qualifications", "no job description".

The Gleaner's competitor went a step further in a self-congratulatory editorial last Wednesday, declaring that "ministers of government must be suitably qualified". The Observer noted, in its push for a technocracy, "Minister in the Government of Jamaica is one of the few jobs to which a person can be appointed without having any relevant training or experience." And then erroneously concluded, "No wonder the sad state of governance."

on ignorance of history

The conclusion simply does not follow and is based not only on ignorance (or ignoring) of history but on ignorance (or ignoring) of the constitutional relationship between minister (as 'chairman of the board' and policymaker) and the civil service (as the technical implementing and advisory arm of government). One of the large benefits of drawing ministers from the House of Representatives is that they would have been reviewed by the electorate, and the more critical and informed the electorate, the better the review.

The genius of Western democracy in free societies lies precisely in "anyone can apply", in the capacity, indeed the right, of the citizen for participation in governance, and that well beyond periodically casting a vote for another fellow citizen who may be no better 'qualified' than the voter. The fundamental qualification is simply that of being a good citizen that others are prepared to entrust with the responsibilities of governance; by the way, on a temporary basis.

The citizen candidate should ideally be of good character, sound judgement, and solid experience in some aspect of practical life demonstrating their capacity to lead. These are the essential traits which wise electors should, as a matter of course, look for. And solid information on the candidate is necessary.

The ascendancy of the career politician and of the political party has changed all this. The voter basically is left with choosing one of whomever the two winnable political parties choose to run as candidates, or to exercise the option of abstention, which a large number of fed-up Jamaican voters are already doing.

influence over candidate selection

Citizens/voters must begin to exercise greater influence over candidate selection. The political parties can and should be made to be afraid, very afraid, of fielding any shady, inexperienced candidate who would be an expensive, unwinnable liability.

We have Citizens' Action for Free and Fair Elections. We now need Citizens' Action for Candidates' Background Checks and Reviews. That would be a big punch for a healthy democracy.

Incidentally, the 'qualification' for the office of local head of state (governor general) is the same as that for candidacy to elected office. The same qualification should apply to appointment to the Senate. Many Commonwealth countries have appointed to the office of governor general an upstanding and experienced citizen with no prior political or state governance experience, and Jamaica has recently joined them.

In fairness, the Observer recovered and went on to make, in that editorial, essentially the same point I am making of qualification of ministers (and parliamentarians) by character, judgement and experience as citizen.

Not only is the role of citizen under threat by the professionalisation of politics, but in the judiciary arm of government, the role of the citizen as juror is under pressure. In close to a thousand years of English jurisprudence, trial by one's peers has been a sacrosanct principle of law. It was held, and quite rightly so, that a panel of one's peers hearing evidence can justly pronounce upon the guilt or innocence of an accused person.

And MPs do have a constitutional job description as representatives in the Lower House, legislators in the legislature, and the much-neglected role, combining the other two, of policymakers. MPs hardly have any more important task or have been more marginalised from duty than participating on the Standing Finance Committee of Parliament, which is the entire House of Representatives tasked with shaping the Budget each year. Parliaments began on the premise of 'no taxation without representation'.

MPs in our emasculated House of Representatives are happy with the gelding roles of delivering handout crumbs to constituents, particularly through the corrupting Constituency Development Fund, and mindlessly cheering their party on. Both the JLP and the PNP are boasting about their stable of young and new candidates. Will the winners be real representatives of their constituents and of their country's interests, or another bunch of party hacks?

Martin Henry is a communication specialist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and medhen@gmail.com.