Peter Espeut DOESN'T IT strike you as odd that it is radio station talk shows that are forcing political candidates to talk about issues in this election campaign? This, I suppose, is why the press has become an essential organ of democracy in the modern state, and why its freedoms have to be guaranteed in any modern constitution. Of course, not all journalists keep the debate focused on issues; some are right with the politicians, keeping the issues at the level of the stomach rather than the brain.
But I remain uncomfortable that so many issues remain undiscussed, and so many issues skirted. A typical scenario: three candidates face off on a talk show to advertise themselves. Each says, "If elected I am going to create jobs and fix roads and build schools and clinics and help the farmers by giving them this or that", and various other promises.
The PNP candidates are almost sitting ducks for the JLP and NDM/NJA who ask: "Why hasn't this road been fixed? Why hasn't this school been repaired? Thirteen years this man has been in and look at the state of the drains and the water supply! And look how poverty and "sufferation" has increased! If I get in I will change it all!"
The PNP candidate is always at a disadvantage, having to explain why if they didn't do it in the last 13 years, they will now do it in the fourth term; but they have developed a stable of standard excuses and rejoinders:
I haven't been there for the whole 13 years;
We inherited a terrible situation from the JLP, and are just now recovering after 13 years
I put the plan forward but didn't get the funds from the Ministry of Finance
That is not my road to fix - that is a Parish Council road
We have spent the 13 years preparing the ground, and we are now ready for take-off
How do you mean we haven't done anything? Look at our solid achievements over the last 13 years!
In the mean time, the underlying issues remain undiscussed, some due to sloppy journalism. For example, what did each incumbent (PNP or JLP) undertake to do in the 1997 campaign? Did they do it? I have waited (in vain) for the talk show host to pull out the incumbent's promise list from last time, and confront them point by point; it is as if everybody starts fresh each election, without references to promises they made in the past. Our journalists give incumbents a big let-off.
An issue so far undiscussed is the very role of MPs - their job description. The MP is part of the legislative branch of government, but I haven't heard any MP asked one question about how they voted on a motion, or how many bills they introduced, or whether they moved amendments to bring benefit to their constituents. And I haven't heard one legislator say they went to Parliament and legislated anything. That is because in our creolised version of Westminster, the legislative role of Parliament has been usurped by the Cabinet, and the role of the MP is reduced to table-thumping. With nothing else to do, MPs then turn around and usurp the role of Local Government officials and Parish Councillors.
I don't know if it is the MP's business to fix roads and drains? That is the job of the Councillor (whose job description also is largely undiscussed), and the MP provides oversight. I suppose the way the artificial distinction is perpetuated is to divide roads and drains between central and local government; which gives the MPs good excuses when some roads are in poor repair, suggesting that the MP is not responsible for all of his constituency.
But this is so inefficient. Is this how we want our country run? In the 1980s the JLP pursued one solution: abolish Parish Councils and complete the usurpation. MPs will do all that Councillors do. That position was reversed by the PNP in the 90s who embarked on "Local Government Reform" which seeks to put Councillors in their proper places. But what place is that? And what is the proper place of the MP? Why are all roads not dealt with by one agency? Can we afford two agencies? In the end, the money has to come from the same place. Why not create one agency with branches in the parishes? Why not restore the MP as legislator? Why are these issues not being discussed in the campaign? Maybe it is because we niggers are stupid and illiterate, and only respond to freeness and circuses. What contempt!
Where is talk of governance, about the budget process? If MPs suffer from lack of funds from the Ministry of Finance, what new approach to budget preparation do they favour? The truth is, each MP is powerless to set this sort of policy; they have to take what they get! So the campaign is about "woulda shoulda coulda". Many issues are constitutional ones, requiring profound change? Better to stick with the basics in the campaign; talk of fixing roads will get more votes than fixing government. These ignorant people can't see further than their next meal or school-fee payment.
I would have at least expected journalists to raise the question whether press freedom will be enshrined in the constitution. Why do we avoid discussing issues? Why do we prefer to talk about handouts?
Where is the debate on economic policy in this campaign? How will the JLP get us out of this high interest rate trap? What will the PNP do differently in the fourth term to get us out of the debt trap? How to finance free education is budgeting, not economic policy. If Jamaica is unfriendly to investment (as one Cabinet minister said openly), then what policies will make us investor-friendly? The policies that both parties have supported so far are to: (1) give tax breaks, which deprives government of needed revenue; (2) supply cheap labour by under-educating the population; (3) promise "co-operative" unions, which they can't deliver; (3) promise that environmental concerns will not be an obstacle.
Which is a whole other story. Have you heard any candidate say "If elected, I will see that the environment is not wantonly destroyed?" Have you heard, "If elected I will restore your depleted fisheries, and make fishing prosperous by making it sustainable". They will, however, promise gifts of free boats and engines, which only adds to the overfishing. None of these political parties are friends of the environment, so environmentally conscious voters have no choices in the election! Not even journalists raise these issues with candidates.
I long to hear a candidate say, "If elected I will put and end to police brutality and extra-judicial executions". In the end, we get the government and the country we deserve, I suppose.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
