Robert Buddan, Contributor

Voters need electoral systems through which to elect their representatives to Parliament. Electoral systems therefore stand at the centre of democracies and the requirement for free and fair elections is a defining feature of democracy.

Regardless of the electoral formula used (such as plurality or proportional representation), electoral systems have to be administered. Trust in those who administer elections largely determines trust in democracy.

Jamaica is to have elections on August 27. Can we trust those elections?

We must separate the behaviour of voters who try to manipulate the system and the representatives who are produced by the system from those who administer it. Can we trust the Electoral Office of Jamaica, the Electoral Commission, and the minister with responsibility for electoral matters?

When electoral systems fail to produce legitimate results interventions might be sought from a supreme court (U.S. presidential elections, 2000), international organisations (Haiti's presidential elections, 2006), the military of another country (Australia in East Timor, 2007), or the local military; or rioting and boycott of Parliament by the losing party causing instability or even civil war might occur. The integrity of electoral administration is directly related to the legitimacy of governments and trust in democracy.

Breakdowns of elections might be caused by lack of sufficiently strong electoral infrastructure (physical, administrative and social). Sometimes ex-colonial countries were bequeathed weak infrastructure leading to democratic failures after independence. In many cases, too, doubts have arisen over the neutrality of a country's election commissions (central to Bangladesh's current political crisis).

Electoral commissions have been accused of producing flawed voters' lists, ignoring court rulings, unfairly banning candidates and parties, miscounting votes, misinterpreting the formula for counting votes, appointing incompetent or partisan members and chief electoral officers, or colluding with dishonest voters. Sometimes they are aided and abetted by powerful countries that have an interest in who wins.

Jamaica's electoral administration has suffered to one extent or another from at least some of these causes since its first election in 1944. Jamaica has been far from unique and the problems cannot be reduced simply to political corruption. But where Jamaica differs among many countries with a consistent democratic tradition (over the past 60 years) has been violence and intimidation during elections.

However, this is not simply a problem of political violence. Violence is more endemic in social life. It naturally emerges in politics too. Long ago, just after the elections of 1949, a relieved Governor reported to the House of Representatives that many had predicted that Jamaica would have had a violent election day. This was obviously based on events of the 1944 elections and those leading up to 1949 and in Jamaican life in general. Electoral violence was feared even then.

So, can we trust our electoral system to produce free and fair elections in August? We can certainly trust our election administrators. The last ten years (since 1997) have produced a fundamentally improved election system. The 2002 elections were regarded as the best ever. Violence was almost non-existent even while murders were generally increasing. The Carter Centre compared the Jamaican elections favourably against the U.S. presidential elections of 2000, except for the existence of garrison constituencies.

Electoral integrity

There are three main reasons why we can trust the integrity of our electoral system. One is because of the success of the 2002 elections. That success was built on a process of electoral modernisation going back to the early 1990s. That process involved using better technology for voter identification, having better trained election workers, and regularly updating and verifying voter registration.

But in addition to these, the EOJ will now deploy electronic voting in about 17 constituencies, including some of the more troublesome ones where voter fraud has been a problem in the past. Parliament has now also passed a law that will penalise open balloting to punish actions associated with the intimidation and bribing of voters. And, Jamaica will go into the next elections with an Election Commission, which is an upgrade of the Electoral Advisory Committee. New legislation also bans cellular phones, cameras and video equipment at polling stations.

Each election provides an opportunity to refine and improve techniques based on lessons learned. Cumulative learning should produce successively better electoral administration.

The second reason is that the integrity of the Director of Elections, Danville Walker, and the chairman of the Election Commission, Professor Errol Miller, remains fully intact. There were nopolitical quarrels over how these administrators handled their jobs in 2002, and none since. In fact, Mr. Walker was asked, without objection, to administer hurricane recovery and rehabilitation benefits after Hurricane Ivan, and did so beyond reproach. This, of course, is usually a contentious political matter.

Mr. Walker and Professor Miller have over 17 years experience between them in their respective positions. That experience, plus continuity of their leadership and the fact that they obviously work well together, all add up to the trust they have earned over those years and which converts into administrative integrity.

The next important reason to trust the election administration is because of the independence that the EOJ has enjoyed from politics. The recent disagreement between Parliament and the EC actually testifies to this.

It was the first (or at worse, second) time that Parliament did not accept a recommendation from the EC in the latter's 28-year history. A tradition has been established for Parliament to accept the EC's recommendations.

The objection against making penalties for open voting mandatory came primarily from the non-elected Senate, whose members have less personal and direct stake in the elections and their objection was grounded more on legal trends than on political calculation. The Senate's objection found some support in the Lower House and enjoyed cross-party support in both chambers. In the end, party members on both sides of Parliament settled the matter amicably, which is noteworthy, considering that it was an election- related matter settled six weeks before an election.

Legislative support

The independence of the electoral administration is also evident in the fact that the EOJ/EC have always received the funds and legislative support from the minister with responsibility for electoral matters (Peter Phillips) to provide the increasingly expensive support for new voting technology, payment of election workers and other necessary support for the election infrastructure.

Furthermore, considerations for adding new constituencies and redrawing boundaries have been agreed with little controversy, if any at all. Drawing constituency boundaries was a volatile political issue up to 1976 when we settled on 60 constituencies.

Whatever aspects of the political system Jamaicans might distrust, electoral administration should not be one of them. It is important to separate what works well from what does not when we talk about political trust and integrity. Otherwise, we will not be able to appreciate the reasons why democracy has been sustained in Jamaica despite the stress that the system has often encountered.

It is important to put requirements for free and fair elections before political interest on matters such as when elections are called and who wins. After all, we should all hope that in the end, it is democracy that wins.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, Mona, UWI. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm