Buddan
Robert Buddan, Contributor
BETWEEN 1944 and 1997, the average popular vote for the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was 44 per cent. But this is calculated out of 94 per cent of votes cast for the People's National Party (PNP) and JLP and excludes the votes cast for independent and third party candidates. If one should convert this 44 per cent to the 99 per cent of votes cast for the JLP and PNP in 2002, the percentage would be 46 per cent for the JLP. This is almost the same as the 47 per cent the party received in the last election.
The JLP has averaged 20 seats from 1944 to 1997 out of the total average of 49 seats (remembering that the number of seats gradually increased from 32 to 60). If one were to convert these 20 out of 49 to a proportion out of 60, the number would be 25. Again, this is almost the same number that the JLP received in 2002.
If the same conversions are made for the PNP one finds this. The PNP's historical average of 50 per cent of the popular vote becomes 53 per cent and its historical average of 29 seats becomes 35. Again, these are almost exactly what the PNP received in the 2002 election. Putting everything else aside, one could have predicted the election on the basis of the historical pattern alone. Of course, it would not have been wise to do this.
What the conversions show is that the 2002 election has realigned the parties to their historical competitiveness. The party system has regained its overall balance. The 2002 election results are the same and no different from the cumulative results over the history of the party system.
SWINGS AND TRENDS
This helps us to put the swing into perspective. A swing is the net difference in votes (and seats) between parties over two successive elections. A historical electoral pattern is the trend of voting support for the parties over a long period of time. A swing tracks short-term changes and a historical pattern tracks long-term changes.
Each is useful to study. Short-term patterns tend to be determined by the state of the parties, electoral system and voting behaviour during campaign and election seasons. The nature of personalities, party unity, campaign issues and the quality of candidates from election to election matter. But their effect can be cancelled out between the parties. Therefore, short-term conditions might not make much of a difference overall.
Long-term conditions might prevail instead. Both the PNP and JLP are organisationally and psychologically rooted deeply in the traditions of the society. Psychological bonds between individual voters, families and communities of voters are not so easily broken. Voters are not just free-acting individuals. They are socialised collectivities more or less influenced by families and communities from generation to generation. Parties are long-term beneficiaries of these generational transmissions of political sentiments. Under the conditions of great ideological differences between the parties in the 1970s and 1980s, large swings occurred. Large margins remained in the 1990s as the JLP continued to be an abnormal party. But even so, the PNP experienced smaller negative swings. These swings have gradually realigned the party system to what it is today.
THE MANDATE
The PNP now has to consider its mandate against the swing and the trend. There has been a short-term swing between 1997 and 2002. However, the long-term trend is still consistent with the PNP's dominance, on balance, over the long-term. The elections have stabilised that trend.
The stabilising nature of the elections restores the party system to the level of competitiveness seen between 1949 and 1972. The 2002 election has reconfigured the power relations between the parties in parliament and within the electorate across the country along earlier lines. In this reconfiguration, the governing party must be allowed to take the lead on its manifesto issues but should try to carry the Opposition party along. This would take us back to the more consensual politics of the earlier period. It means that the Opposition must respect the spirit of the system and allow the ruling party to rule while expecting to be heard. The art of compromise will have to be raised to the highest level.
The two sides can begin by concentrating on what they already agree on and build trust and understanding to deal with the areas of greater differences. They agree on free secondary school education, most aspects of constitutional reform, the need to fight crime and violence and to improve the system of oversight and integrity. They agree on broader and more inclusive governance, low-inflation growth, job creation, and the death penalty. If they compare their manifestos, they will find areas of common concern and strategies that can be made compatible.
They will have to find ways to work out their differences on the Caribbean Court of Justice, a parliamentary or a presidential system, police-community relations, inter-party relations, the role of the labour movement and the need for a social contract. The JLP and Jamaicans as a whole must take the 'Values and Attitudes' campaign more seriously.
The parties have made a good start. Mr. Patterson's victory speech has won wide acclaim and set an inspiring tone stressing peace and unity. Mr. Seaga's respectful acknowledgement of the importance of our institutions - the Electoral Office of Jamaica (EOJ), the security forces, the media - is promising. The parties distanced themselves from violent thugs during the campaign. The Code of Conduct must continue to be enforced. The parties have already begun to work together on post-election violence. This is hopeful.
The signs are that the parties will continue to work together to fulfil the objectives of the national crime plan and the idea that the Leaders of the Government and Opposition will have monthly meetings on crime and the economy is a great one. This reminds us of the regular dialogue between Michael Manley and Hugh Shearer. These are the concrete signs that we need to transform our democracy to higher states of renewal.
Most people believe the elections were good for democracy. Our Prime Minister has certainly been elected more fairly than the president of the United States was. The Carter observers should note that. Our parties, electoral administration and security forces have come out of the election stronger than when they went in. Now Parliament must prove that it can follow their act. Our parties and parliament must rise to world class levels.
THE PEOPLE'S MANDATE
It is also our turn as citizens to play a role. More of us must vote and we must stop glorifying the non-voters. Organisations such as the Private Sector Organisation of Jamaica (PSOJ), must stop handing down edicts to Government and get on with their job in the economy. Civil society groups must stop attacking the police and start attacking the criminals. Democratic-minded citizens must take full control of the electoral process and leave no room for thugs to defraud the system and intimidate others. Young people the next generation must move from the sidelines to the centre. The generations are changing the baton.
Elections give Governments mandates to govern. But democracy gives the people a mandate of their own. Governance is a broader concept than Government. One does not have to be in government to be a part of governance. The parties are parts of the process of political governance together. The people are too. They have a permanent mandate to be democratic citizens. We must revive the spirit of volunteerism reminiscent of the nationalist period at its peak. To me, that is where Jamaica's civil society began, back in the 1930s and 1940s and preceded the popular concept of civil society that we know today. The goals are still relevant self-reliance, community development, help for the disadvantaged, and building the spirit of the nation.
Elections provide the input into the political system. Performance reflects the output. At either end, the people have an important role. Let us get on with our mandate.
Robert Buddan is a lecturer in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. E-mail: rbuddan@uwimona.edu.jm.
