WE ARE not surprised that the leaders of the two major political parties are against a fixed election date. After all, changing the present system would eliminate one of the more powerful levers a Prime Minister can wield to maintain his status as primus inter pares (first among equals).
It is a power which effectively keeps members of the Cabinet in line and is used to determine when an election should be called; 'flying the gate' being the popular usage coined by the current Prime Minister.
Proponents of a fixed date have argued that the suspense engendered by waiting on the Prime Minister's will contributes to the tensions of a long election season which is already fraught with worry about potential violence.
This position is supported by the outgoing president of the Jamaica Chamber of Commerce, citing the uncertainties affecting some members of the business community. The venerable Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs at its 85th annual general meeting last month also called for a fixed election date.
At The Gleaner Editors' Forum on Wednesday Mr. Patterson readily recognised "one of the rare occasions" when he could agree with Opposition Leader Edward Seaga. Mr. Seaga at a political rally in Spaldings, Clarendon, had rejected the notion of a fixed election date.
The ground of objection is perhaps the most persuasive. A government which through gross incompetence had angered or lost the trust of the people should not be tolerated in office simply because a fixed term of office had not expired.
Taking another tack Mr. Patterson has cited the American situation where with a fixed date, one election is barely finished before campaigning for the next election begins. That example, however, is irrelevant for the simple reason that campaigning, American style, is a far cry from the tribal warfare so deeply embedded in the habits of Jamaican party supporters.
The fierce and fanatic loyalties of the most exuberant segments of the Jamaican electorate are what adds tension to the fight for political spoils. Both PNP and JLP seem committed to keep things as they are for the foreseeable future. The debate for change should be pursued when electoral reform can achieve more tolerant attitudes in political behaviour.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
