Earl Bartley, Contributor
THE JAMAICA Labour Party has won a momentous victory at the Local Government elections - its first national election victory in 20 years.
The JLP victory has been long in the making. Because since winning the largest mandate in the country's history in 1993 with a 51-9 trouncing of the JLP in national elections, the People's National Party (PNP) plurality has diminished in successive national elections to 43 to 17 in 1997, further declining to 35 to 25 in the present parliament. The decline in the PNP's plurality in the Local Government system though less dramatic, has not detracted from the declining popularity of the Government.
The governing party tried to restrict the recent political debate to Local Government issues. The JLP insisted, however, that the elections be a referendum on the Government's performance and that viewpoint seemed to have prevailed. Because even before the vote, a pre-election poll showed that the issues uppermost in people's minds were national concerns related to joblessness and crime, not local issues.
SLIDING POPULARITY
The PNP's sliding popularity was bound to lead to electoral defeat eventually. That it took so long has less to do with consistent high performance by the Government, and moreso skilful manipulation of limited performance at appropriate times (usually in the last year or few months leading up to an election). If the PNP performance in government has been poor to mediocre, it is generally acknowledged that its skills at electioneering have been outstanding. There will probably be long debates within the PNP regarding the tactical errors underlying the present electoral loss. Our concerns, however, are more with the fundamental reasons underlying the loss and the prospects for governance with two different parties controlling the two levels of the state machinery.
The PNP defeat reflects the filling up and overflowing of the people's cup of disenchantment. Despite their possible reservations about his principle arising from the Iran Sugar Deal and Shell Waver scandals, in overwhelming supporting Mr. Patterson in 1993, people were probably recalling his role as a leading voice of moderation and common sense during the turbulent 1970s. They probably also felt that as 'one of their own', which was one of the implicit, and often explicit themes of the PNP 1993 campaign, Mr. Patterson would continue the modernisation of the economy with their interests in mind.
In taking the oath of office in 1993, Mr. Patterson reprised many of the people's concerns and desires. "This mandate," he noted, "is one that rejects confrontation and requires consensus. It forbids alienation and cries out for identification. It makes accountability paramount. It asserts that performance will be measured by results and not overlooked by excuses. It calls for Government that forbids waste and promotes efficiency."
Much of these objectives probably sounds like mockery today to many people. The Patterson Administration has had notable successes such as:
'modernising' the country's policy framework, at least on paper; promoting home ownership easing consumer shortages on all sorts of goods, ranging from cars, phones, clothes and food improved the physical infrastructure like roads and other public facilities; and kept prices stable. Nonetheless, these successes have been overwhelmed by the many failures associated with the Government such as:
marginal growth and weak job creation; horrendous debt now running at 150 per cent of GDP; high crime; debilitating scandal and corruption; and continuing high poverty with one fifth of the population living on less than US$2 per day.It is the cup of these failures that has finally overflowed in the Government's wash-out at the local polls. The question is how will the parties handle this division of power. Three scenarios seem possible.
OPPOSE, OPPOSE, OPPOSE!
Both the Government and the opposition could decide to oppose each other. The JLP out of its craving for power could decide to show-up the Government by making unreasonable demands for funds in straitened circumstances for overly ambitious repair and maintenance work, and to raise up their supporters when funds are not provided. The PNP could conversely try to embarrass the JLP by cutting back financial support for the councils. Both parties could also use whatever resources they command to support and boost their support base, at the expense of the broader public good, deepening the political tribalism.
As outrageous as the above scenarios are, they are not entirely foreign to Jamaican politics. The culture of Jamaican politics is one-upmanship in the competition for power. But if the parties should sink to their usual low tactics, then the 25 per cent turn-out that characterised this recent election would seem like a massive turnout come 2006/07.
CO-OPERATION
Alternatively, the parties could decide to co-operate as they have done on electoral reform over the past two decades, and as they started doing after October 2002. But co-operation requires shared visions and goals.
The JLP has generally had a managerial vision of Local Government, as a sort of efficient county administration. The PNP's vision of Local Government, on the other hand, has been more political, emphasising popular participation, and a more euphemistic than real, 'deepening of the democratic process.'
These two differing visions are not impossible to blend. The question for each party is whether hey perceive the benefits from co-operation as outweighing the gains from competition.
The best case scenario would be for central and Local Government to try to outperform each other, in serving the public's interest. As for the two other options, the deciding factor will be what the parties believe would help them to gain and retain power. Moreover, in any performance competition, the JLP might feel itself at a distinct disadvantage, given the much lesser resources at its command compared to the Government.
OUTPERFORMING EACH OTHER
As regrettable as it seems, the interest of the parties in maintaining or gaining power does not preclude, but certainly does not favour the more publicly beneficial outcomes. Edward Hallett Carr in his classical study of power during the inter-war years The Twenty Years Crisis, observes, that given man's competitive power hungry nature, "the ideal can never be realised, nor should the real be idealised."
The threatening competitive undertones in both Mr. Seaga's and Mr. Patterson's post-election remarks would seem to reaffirm the truth of H.E. Carr's remark. Mr. Seaga spoke of the Labour Party's victory being the "beginning of the end" for Government. Mr. Patterson warned unsmilingly of tougher competition for the 2006 Local Government polls. It seems that the Political Ombudsman and civil society may be called upon to do a lot of work to keep these two ageing political mastodons from trampling Jamaica's hopes for democratic renewal underfoot.
Earl Bartley is an economist and businessman. E-mail: adapapa@cwjamaica.com.
