Peter Espeut IN LAST week's Local Government elections, did the electorate "vote in" the JLP or "vote out" the PNP? The answer is important because of the conclusions we may wish to draw.
If Jamaicans voted "in" the JLP them we can draw the conclusion that the drought is broken, and the myth of the unwinnability of Edward Seaga has been dispelled. If the mind-set of the Jamai-can electors was to vote out the PNP, then neither the JLP nor its leader should crow too loudly.
The PNP loss after the recent general election victory is evidence of serious miscalculation by Prime Minister Patterson, often described as a "political genius" and strategist. "Why did he postpone it for so long?" ask his supporters. The results are certainly a big defeat for Mr. Patterson who would have preferred to end his political career on a winning note. Since the JLP called for the election to function as a referendum, the PNP have now lost any mandate (they believe they had) to replace appeals to the UK Privy Council with the so-called Caribbean Court of Justice. The government knows why they rushed to ratify.
The turnout was low, the second lowest in our history! The majority sent a message by their absence. The data suggests that the few that turned out were mostly the PNP and JLP hard core, but that many PNP die-hards stayed home (die-hearted, perhaps?)
HAVING TO PLAY CATCH-UP
Until now the data has indicated that the PNP hard core is larger than the JLP's, so that in any election, the PNP starts ahead, with the JLP having to play catch-up by attracting uncommitted voters.
The fact that thousands of PNP hard core supporters stayed away suggests that they were not genuine hard core supporters to begin with. Maybe on both sides the size of the hard core is shrinking further!
The PNP is certainly guilty of taking their hard core for granted, of believing that no matter the burden of taxation they impose to pay for government inefficiency and corruption, no matter to what level prices rise due to devaluation brought on by economic mismanagement and political overspending, loyal PNP supporters will continue to vote for them.
And so the JLP were more successful than the PNP in getting out the remnants of their hard core (since many of the PNP hard core were unwilling), and they attracted the votes of a number of non-hard core persons who also wanted to register their disgust. I don't believe that the victory is a sign of support for and approval of Edward Seaga or the JLP, and they err if they draw that conclusion.
Even more remarkable are the results in some PNP garrisons, which showed that the monolithic voting pattern is breaking down, unthinkable only a few years ago. I believe that much of the credit is due to the EAC/EOJ and CAFFE which have worked hard to make elections freer. I applaud the provision of the new type of screen behind which persons can vote in private. Such a simple design - a modified double cardboard box - I believe has now allowed voting really to be by secret ballot, allowing residents of garrisons to vote otherwise than the Dons and their political masters prescribe, which is a very good omen.
NOW SEEING BENEFITS
Indeed I believe we are now seeing benefits from the new electoral machinery (photos in black books, independent electoral day staff) and the watchful eyes of CAFFE observers. In the past, not being able to bring out disaffected supporters would not have been a serious problem; "getting out the vote" meant that ballot boxes would have been stuffed from the night before, sometimes overstuffed! Indeed only now are we getting closer to real democracy!
Still more tightening-up is required; proper procedures are not being followed everywhere. A photograph in last Sunday's Observer (page 10) shows the PNP mayoral candidate for Portmore with his ballot in his hand about to drop it into the ballot box. This exposes a breach of proper electoral procedure.
No voter is allowed to drop his ballot in the box; only the Presiding Officer may put the ballot in the box, and only after the voter has dipped his right index finger in the ink. This breach has been caught on camera for all to see. How many other (more serious) breaches went unobserved?
VOTER INTIMIDATION
Campaigning is not permitted on election day, and so no political meetings may be held or political literature handed out. This is not enough. I would like to see campaigning and voter intimidation redefined to include the presence of heckling crowds on election day.
At the gate of every cluster of polling stations all day were two camps of T-shirted supporters who harass voters going inside. Some of it is good-natured bantering; "Dat one deh a mine!" "From 'im born 'im aP!" "Dat one cyah change!" "Down to de fowl in 'er yard aP!" Some of it is even more aggressive and pointed. But all this election-day theatre is campaigning and voter intimidation, especially when it takes place inside the polling station among the Indoor Agents as the elector is preparing to vote.
Why should voters have to run the gamut of heckling crowds outside and heckling indoor agents inside the polling station in order to exercise their democratic rights? Frankly I would prefer to see handing out of party propaganda on election day to this kind of behaviour.
The truth is we already have campaign financing in Jamaica. The taxpayers of Jamaica (most of whom boycotted the election to show their disapproval) pay a stipend to the indoor and outdoor agents of the political parties. If people really support their party, they should volunteer to do party work free of cost, and certainly not at public expense. It seems to me that the presence of well-fed hordes of paid party supporters in party paraphernalia at polling stations (as a show of strength, to give the impression of massive support) is not only intimidation but part of the scarce benefits and spoils system we want to move away from.
ENTER AND EXIT IN PEACE
Our electoral procedures should prohibit assembly within 100 yards of a polling station so electors can enter and exit in peace; there should be a level of quiet inside polling stations; and the practice of public funding for party workers should cease.
Another remarkable phenomenon from this election was the significant support shown for independent candidates. Since Independence, support for independent candidates has been dismal because of the stranglehold on the political system by the two major political parties. Like the signals from the garrisons, is this the beginning of a refreshing trend away from PNP/JLP hegemony?
Although things are improving, our democracy is still not in the best of health. The low registration and low turnout means that a majority of Jamaicans are dissatisfied with our political system and our political parties. It certainly is not healthy that most Parish Councillors operate with the support of about 15% of the persons of voting age in their divisions.
Peter Espeut is a sociologist and is executive director of an environment and development NGO.
