Edward Seaga

The 2007 General Election has come to an end. Voting will take place tomorrow, Monday, September 3. Many will give a sigh of relief because of what they considered to be an unusually long period between the announcement of Nomination Day on July 8 and Election Day (August 27) - almost two months.

This drawn-out period, more than twice the normal length, caused a build-up of much anxiety. But suppose those anxious people had to endure a nine-month period from announcement on February 3, 1980, to Election Day on October 30?

At that time it was not mere anxiety that filled the span of time. Mostly, it was fear. Virtually each day, but certainly each week, there were political killings. Even those who were not even remotely related to the political process felt threatened. In the end, more than 500 people died during that extended period, almost two every day.

General Election 2007 had a different diversion. Never before in any campaign since the advent of television has there been so many ads on screen, so repetitiously and for such an extended period.

Advertisements

The regulation I know limited each party to five ads per night. I can't recall the number stipulated for radio. The current frequency is certainly excessive. Has the regulation changed? Is there room here for the Electoral Commission to establish future guidelines?

The ads serve to inform as well as to entertain. For the first time, several ads were penetrating with pointed political wit, a rarity in the past. Of course, being politics, some of them were political daggers that wounded opponents deeply.

Much more ads were presented on television than on radio, or in the newspapers. This was a sign of the times regarding the extended reach of television. Television ads are deemed to be potent. But for whom? The man in the street, on anislandwide basis, gets most of his information from the street. The effect of TV as a source of influence can therefore be overrated.

Street activity in 2007 exceeded previous occasions, perhaps because of the extended period, but also because campaign funding did not seem to be a problem on this occasion. In 2002, the JLP was leading by six points up to June. But it was not able to sustain its campaign due to inadequate funding into October and lost by a margin of 4.5 points.

This campaign started with a focus on issues and performance. As a consequence, it was a campaign that attracted discussions and arguments. Had it continued on this path it could have been the first campaign to be conducted on a reasoned basis. However, it did not. It took a turn into targeting the personality of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition moving back to what elections used to be all about.

The problem in political campaigning is that two types of presentations have to be made: one to those persons who normally gain information from the media by reading and watching; the other group picks up information in a patchwork of small radio and television bites and a good deal on street information. This is often garnished with a generous sprinkling of misinformation.

The first group has to be reached by the media. Hence, the strong media campaign. The second group is influenced from the platform with street language, references and slogans. The problem here is that this method is not amenable to discussing issues. Hence, the prime determinant of the outcome of elections are matters of personality preferences, social issues and "feel good" factors laced with attractive entertainment.

There is much objection to the 'rah-rah' aspect of election campaigning which involves crowd activity, especially motorcades. But those objections fail to recognise that the excitement generated is the means by which interest is worked-up in the mass of the population for Election Day participation. Strip those elements of entertainment and competitiveness away from the process and the turnout for voting would fall to near 50 per cent. This would be detrimental to the democratic system so the antics of campaign motorcades have to be viewed as serving the democratic process.

Voting is likely to be smoother than previous occasions because of the use of the new electronic voting system this new system has been introduced on a limited basis, it will speed up the process. More importantly, it will be clean, because the major forms of electoral fraud have been eliminated by the automatic electronic fingerprint verifications system. When this system is finally used island-wide, as it is expected to be, Jamaica will have one of the cleanest electoral systems in the world.

This clean-up exercise would be the result of a battle which began in 1978 when I advised Michael Manley that, after the massive fraud of the 1976 State of Emergency election and succeeding bye-elections, the JLP would not participate in anymore elections unless the system was removed from the control of the Minister responsible for electoral affairs. This ultimatum came at a most delicate time for Manley. He was in great disfavour among countries which could provide critically needed foreign exchange.

The IMF also was in deep negotiations with the government. There was no room for Manley to reject my demand for reform of the system without offending these external interests. The proposed process was to create an electoral advisory committee led by non-political figures selected by the two political leaders and appointed by the Governor-General.

To take this proposal forward, Manley appointed P.J. Patterson and I selected Bruce Golding. They had discussions with Keeble Munn, the minister responsible for elections and worked out the details. The first Electoral Advisory Committee was established for the 1980 election which was relatively free of fraud.

Over successive elections, it became obvious that the new system was open to massive fraud. This led Ryan Peralto in1991, to propose an electronic verification system. I backed him fully. The matter ended up in the hands of the EAC where it was thoroughly tested, discussed and determined. After 11 years it was finally ready for sample implementation in 2002 in two constituencies where it was successful. The wider use in this election will test its capacity to be used islandwide.

A factor which played an important role in making this campaign the smoothest to date is that finally, after many changes, the country has found the right electoral panel of - commissioners. They are non-political, decisive and firm. Unless something most unexpected happens, the 2007 election is likely to be the cleanest and smoothest ever.

But something could happen. Both parties are projected to be in a dead heat rating of choice by the electorate and a significant number of seats are very close in their own ratings. This is the ideal condition in which electoral violence and fraud prevails.

As a dedicated democratic country which believes in the use of the ballot box to change government, a proud historic record, the people deserve an electoral system of which they can be equally proud. It appears that this could happen now, unless the temptation to change the results in some marginal seats becomes too great to resist because the stakes are very high.

Edward Seaga is a former Prime Minister. He is now a Distinguished Fellow at the UWI. Email: odf@uwimona.edu.jm