Robert Buddan - POLITICS OF OUR TIMEA 2006 survey, just released, and conducted by Ian Boxill and colleagues in the Social Sciences at UWI, Mona, covers a wide range of subjects on citizens' attitudes to Jamaica's democracy. One evident conclusion is that the population least trusts the partisan institutions of government and politics. These are the political parties, elections, parliament and parish councils. The non-partisan institutions like the courts, army, media and church have higher levels of trust.
This means that our popular democratic exercise of electing parties to parliament and local government councils involve the areas of least trust and support making these exercises susceptible to the greatest volatility and cynicism. Yet, this exercise should be the pride of our democracy. This low level of trust reflects itself in lower levels of voting than is desired and lower expectations of what can be achieved by voting.
With the spotlight now on the coming local government elections, some findings are particularly relevant. Trust in parish councils was recorded at 41 points out of 100. This was identical to the score for trust in Parliament. So the political assemblies of central and local government suffered the same degree of scepticism. Trust in elections earned only 39 points and trust in political parties was scored the lowest - 36 points. Taken together, the process of elections in which parties compete for control of Parliament and parish councils earns 40 points when averaged and explains why Jamaica received only 44 points among Jamaicans who said they had pride in our political system.
Incidentally, the Electoral Office was scored at 51 points, about the same score given for trust in the Supreme Court. The EOJ is perceived in better light than the electoral process itself, suggesting that it is the partisan activities of the electoral process that people disapprove of. This is more reason for the EOJ to improve the calibre of persons who work during elections, a point made already by recent election observers.
Probably the most optimistic interpretation of the findings for local government is that people trust it no less than Parliament, and in that sense local government is, as important as Parliament is and deserves a place in our political system, even in our Constitution.
This is buttressed by another survey conducted by Powell, Bourne and Waller on behalf of the Centre for Leadership and Governance of the Department of Government, Mona, also in 2006.
The survey found that 18 per cent of Jamaicans said they had contacted local government for a personal and family problem. This was the same percentage that said they had contacted a central government official or politician about such problems. Again, local government was no less important than central government for such matters.
However, more Jamaicans contacted local government officials or politicians about community problems than those who contacted central government by 31 per cent to 24 per cent. Jamaicans are closer to local government and they turn to local government in greater numbers for general community problems than to central government.
This reinforces the point about the importance of local government to people's lives. In fact, contacting local government about general community problems was the third most popular form of participation, after attending political rallies and persuading others to vote for a particular political party. However, the same survey showed that people had the least confidence in local government among 22 social and political institutions this level of confidence was not far behind that expressed in the political parties (combined) and Parliament.
One thing is common in both surveys. The partisan institutions attract less trust and confidence than the ones perceived to be less partisan or not partisan at all. People seem to feel that these partisan institutions are self-serving and so do not serve the people, as they should.
REFORM
If local government reform is to work, then it must be bound up with the kinds of reforms of political parties, the election process, and Parliament that will change the perceptions of the ensemble of our partisan institutions as a whole. Probably one of the problems inhibiting local democracy and local government has been that local reforms have been pursued independently of reforming the wider political process. This makes the case for constitutional reform.
Eris Schoburgh of the Department of Government, Mona, has studied Jamaica's local government and also believes that the role of central government and of the political parties has not helped the performance or the image of local government. She says, "Local government has demonstrated an inability to exhort much interest in its politics and consequently its operations have had very little impact on the electorate, managing to evoke only about 50 per cent voter turnout." In fact, the turnout in 2003 was 40 per cent and 34 per cent in 1998.
This is not to make central government and political parties demons of local government. Central government can be good for local government, such as when reforms increased local government revenues dramatically after 1994; or when central government ministries lead reforms that produce direct elections of mayors that strengthen local democracy. The problem is that of trust in partisan politics plus the fact that the two parties have different levels of commitment to local government. For instance, a government that said it wished to abolish the Ministry of Local Government now follows the strong leadership towards local government reform and community development under the previous administration.
Dr. Karen Hilliard, mission director USAID in Jamaica, looks at a copy of the 'Political Culture of Democracy in Jamaica' survey results with Professor Ian Boxhill of the University of the West Indies, Mona, at the Courtleigh Hotel, on November 26. - Ricardo Makyn/Staff Photographer
CITIZEN ENGAGEMENT
Then there are the problems caused by citizens themselves. It is one thing to devote 100 per cent of property taxes to local government, as has been done. It is another to get citizens to pay their property taxes. It had been presumed that when regions have more autonomy and elect their own mayor they would feel responsible enough to pay their taxes to local government. But in 2006, the Mayor of Portmore complained that 62 per cent of property owners were delinquent taxpayers. Citizens too must share blame.
The lack of consensus between the two parties represents a difference of views about the importance of community development. One pillar of the community development view is that the community represents the centre of focus for development activities. Many citizens believe this but do not act true to it by paying their property taxes. It is important therefore to have municipal revenue courts. A further view is that local initiative and local leadership are critical.
Businesses and communities should work more closely with local government instead of running to central government every time, and parties should cultivate strong local leadership by requiring a proportion of candidates for parliament to have served in local government before. A further view still is that inclusive participation legitimises local initiatives. This means that more citizens must attend community and parish development committee meetings. Finally, local government must own more resources and have wider (but accountable) powers to obtain loans from the private sector.
Greater citizen involvement will moderate the partisan effects of politics on local (and central) government and increase trust in the political process, at different levels of government. This is the whole point of community development and the engagement of citizenship. Trust in politics depends on their participation.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. E-mail: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm
