- Norman Grindley/Staff Photographer
Under proportional representation the present membership of the House of Representatives would have been more like 32 PNP to 28 JLP; and this would have been more in accord with the expressed will of the people.
Ken Jones, Contributor
I CANNOT for a fleeting moment understand the thinking of those bureaucrats who have shamelessly suggested that Jamaicans in these perilous times should have more parliamentarians to represent the interests of the country and a larger parliamentary building in which to house them.
What Jamaica needs is better, not bigger, government and instead of an increase we should be seeking ways and means of cutting parliamentary representation to fit the accommodation at Gordon House.
In the past 32 years there is precious little that has happened to justify the growth in size and cost of political representation. Yet we have been paying dearly for it and at this time when the nation's economy is on its knees, social and moral standards are in rapid decline and our elected and selected spokesmen appear dumbfounded by the challenges, there is no need for further political expansion. Surely, such a call should be resisted, resolutely, absolutely and with finality.
Those who attach importance to the redefining of constituency boundaries and the possibility of a PNP-JLP tie in a House of 60 seats should not complain if they are charged with being hard-hearted and hard of hearing.
Here we are, with most of our citizens in dire straits, businesses down-sizing or capsizing, public entities unable to adequately provide even essential services, job opportunities shrinking and the ranks of the unemployed swelling out of proportion.
Fraud, corruption and other forms of criminality overwhelm us and in these circumstances persons who should know better are asking us to employ more politicians. In a mere 42 years of Independence we have moved from 45 seats in 1962 to 53 in 1967 and then on to 60 in 1976.
And now, faced with persistent social and economic decline, we are told that we will not be properly represented unless we have more Members of Parliament. Truth to tell, we were much better represented when there were only 45-53 members in the House during the first 10 years of Independence. During that time the Gross National Product grew by an annual average of more than six per cent in real terms; and there were nearly 120 new factories opened. This represented US$70 million new investment and well over 15,000 new jobs.
Michael Manley in his book, Struggle in the Periphery, while critical of the period, concedes: "Total new investment was $629.4 million, the number of hotel beds available to the tourist industry grew from 7,471 to 17,944. On every side the model was working to the extent that 'working' can be measured statistically." Of course, Jamaica would be ecstatic if today's parliamentarians could provide us with such statistics.
One argument proposed by those wanting bigger government is that the smaller the constituency the more manageable it becomes and the better for an MP to maintain contact with those he/she represents. But even in the hot pursuit of democracy it is not essential to increase the size of parliament. Nor is it necessary, for this purpose, to redefine boundaries simply because of the natural growth of the population or the movement of persons from one place to another. The allocation of seats should be on a parish basis with a fixed number of constituencies within each.
CONGRESS
The United States, the largest of the world's democracies, has not changed the size of its parliament in nearly 100 years. Congress has not increased the membership of the House of Representatives since 1910 when there were 435 members and each represented about 210,000 persons. Today the number of representatives is the same although each constituency has much more than 600,000 individuals. Had the ratio of House membership kept pace with population growth there would now be something like 2,500 members of Congress.
The periodic redefining of constituency boundaries is an exercise and an expense that could be avoided if we opted for proportional representation in national elections. This electoral procedure would also help to prevent a tie between the PNP and JLP, discourage the establishing of "garrison" constituencies and afford better chances for smaller parties representing views other than those of the major political groups.
Incidentally, an electoral tie is not such a dreadful thing. If we were able to handle a one-party government, as we did in 1983, then this should not be an insurmountable obstacle. Indeed, other countries have benefited from the coalition of interests that could result from it. Some find that a 'balanced Parliament' encourages moderate policies and is often more efficient than when the governing body is too independent of parliament. Also, coalition governments have a wider pool of talent from which to draw, and may be quite stable. But we need not come to the point of coalition.
Proportional representation avoids this possibility and is regarded by many as being much better for representational politics and more reflective of the true will of the people. For instance, the present division between the parties in the House of Representatives would be a bit closer had the elections been based on proportional representation.
Approximate calculations show that in October, 2002, the PNP got 52.2 per cent of the votes and nearly 57 per cent of the seats, while the JLP with 47.2 per cent of the votes got 43 per cent of the seats. The system gave the PNP 34 seats to the JLP's 26. Under proportional representation the present membership of the House would have been more like 32 PNP to 28 JLP; and this would have been more in accord with the expressed will of the people. On the basis of true democracy, the PNP got more seats than it deserved and it is this business of parties getting too many seats that should be addressed by the Electoral Office. And while they are at it, we should consider putting a limit on the size of the Cabinet.
LOOPHOLE
Unfortunately, our Constitution provides a gaping loophole that has been unscrupulously exploited. Chapter VI, 69 (1) says the Cabinet should have no less than 11 members and the Prime Minister. This allows a Prime Minister to name as many as he wishes and, as we have seen, this has been done without compunction; and they have heaped insult upon injury with an ever-increasing cadre of consultants drawn from the ranks of their defeated colleagues. With that sort of conduct going on unabated, we can well imagine what is to happen when the bureaucrats begin to redefine boundaries, purportedly to rationalise constituency population and to break the present even number of 60 seats. They would need only one more seat, but should they find it necessary to create an extra constituency in St. Catherine and if this seems to favour one side, the other will be demanding equal treatment in a place where their own chances will be better.
So there will be another new division and this will mean breaking the even number of 62 and finding yet another constituency. Of course the Electoral Commission could simply cut out one seat, but again that would bring trouble to the camps of political parties more concerned about their own parliamentary representation than that of the people.
There are good reasons for reducing the present size of Parliament. Beside the fact that Parliament was more productive when we had 45 representatives, we now have vastly improved methods of communication and Members of Parliament are better able to be in touch with their constituents.
And what will it cost the taxpayer for each new Member of Parliament? Try to add it up yourself the cost of preparing a new constituency for elections, the salary for the winner, the perks and other expenses, the SESP funding, the provisions for staffing, the additional seating and other facilities at Gordon House, health care and the pension plan, etc., etc. Proportional representation will do away with gerrymandering and will allow us to concentrate on cost-cutting rather than constituency cutting. It might also improve on voter apathy, which is now a serious threat to true democracy.
Large numbers of voters are abandoning their responsibility to go to the polls, because they have lost faith in the system and believe that nothing will change. Others neglect to do their civic duty because they don't think the candidate and the programme of their choice can win against the heavy machinery of the two big parties. However, such persons could be energised by the belief that other citizens of like mind will be considered when the counting is done.
PORK BARREL POLITICS
Pork barrel politics could also be reduced or eliminated by proportional representation, because MPs would not have to be distracted from national issues by the need to look after followers striving for a place near the feeding trough. In fact there might be no trough and the SESP funds given to each MP to dispense and disburse could be put to better community use by people who can and should be held accountable for the spending.
The country is in need of drastic political change; and this will come about only when there are men and women prepared to look beyond mere refinements of the elective and the legislative processes. Looking at the present lot, it seems that Jamaica is short of the fearless and thoughtful leadership that should be standing up for sensible corrective action.
Representatives of the parliamentary Opposition, seemingly bashful about their constitutional role as "members who do not support the Government" are often too accommodating to those charged with responsibility for the "general direction and control of the Government."
They too have contributed to the fading image of Parliament, either by being less than vigorous on burning issues or going off with the ruling party for private brokering outside of Gordon House. Meanwhile, outside of Parliament, the trade union leadership, once the bastion of working class resistance, has now buckled under. By an understanding with the Government, it has compromised the right of employees to demand justice from their employers and to negotiate on equal terms at any time.
In the glory days of its existence the union movement was able to influence Government policy for the good of the people. It considered national programmes and brought the weight of its ideas and practical experience to bear upon the parties seeking its support. Nowadays, it is summoned, scolded and persuaded by a bloated administration to withhold and minimise just claims for relief from the bitter fruits of mismanagement.
And while this grotesque reversal of representational roles is being perpetrated, there are voices in the business sector readily applying the verbal stamp of approval, hoping no doubt to win similar immunities for themselves. Is there no one to represent the suffering people? Is there no balm in Gilead?
Ken Jones is general-secretary of the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs
