Robert Buddan

The September and December elections have closed this cycle of parliamentary and local government elections for the time being. In theory, we are supposed to have local government election every three years and parliamentary election every five years. We should be gearing up for election again in 2010 and 2012. In the meantime, we have to make the governments we have elected work.

Two formulae for making government work have been evident since 2002. The fact that the PNP controlled central government and the JLP controlled local government, in effect, made a system of power sharing or shared governance a feature of our politics at these two levels of government and the parties seemed to have cohabited well enough.

The other has been the Vale Royal Summits in operation (on and off) since 2002. The Vale Royal Summits are meetings between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition on what the parties and parliament were in a position to cooperate on.

Certain realities between September and December should remind us that unity of purpose is even more necessary now. The September election was so close that one cannot say that the winning party received a clear mandate to govern. In the September election, less than 3,000 votes separated the parties making it one of the most even contests in the history of democratic elections. It is all the more remarkable that the transition to a new government took place so smoothly, a sign of maturity that Jamaican politicians can build on.

PERFECT BALANCE

Support for the two parties between September and December has been perfectly balanced. A week before the local government election, The Gleaner/Johnson poll showed them even with 31 per cent support each. The JLP's victory in the local government election might not have been as narrow as that of September, but it is narrow enough in the popular vote split. Again, there is no clear mandate for either party.

Probably the real mandate is for the two parties to share responsibility for governance because, the balance of popular support aside, this is mandated by the situation we face arising from the international system. The Gleaner/Johnson poll last week showed that a majority of Jamaicans feel that the country is going in the wrong direction. This was the case before the last change of government and the case three months after.

We know that oil prices had been hovering close to US$100 per barrel a day for a few weeks and this has had serious impact on local costs. Add to this, the costs of Hurricane Dean and the flood rains of Tropical Storm Noel, and the threat to national survival is brought into even sharper focus. Then there is the depression-like weakness of the American economy that could soften the winter tourism season going well into next year. It could also reduce remittances sent home and jobs available to Jamaicans in the U.S. This would add more pressure to the exchange rate and the cost of living.

The problem of safety and security is, of course, a major threat. The press reports that more than 350 persons have been killed since the election in September and that 47 were murdered in the week leading up to the December election. There is no doubt that the situation in Jamaica has deteriorated badly in recent months. Prices are high, crime is escalating and road conditions are bad.

These are setbacks to our democracy. Therefore, we also need a new mandate for our democracy and that mandate must be for political cooperation. The paradox we face is that democracy gives people the option to change their governments regularly on the assumption that bad government will change into good government and good government will change into better government until a country receives its best government possible. Yet, we find fewer and fewer people voting, so tha governments continue to change, fewer people are exercising the option of changing them - not what democracy intended. Since democracy is based on the premise that the many are better able to select wise governments than the few, government becomes not better, but worse, regardless of how wise the few think they are.

Matters become worse when newly elected governments feel a grand sense of their own importance that is out of proportion to the mandate they are given or the control they have over the national situation. Governments do not have the control over the economy that they would like and therefore cannot guarantee their own legitimacy, as well intentioned as they might be. Economic conditions play a strong role in how people trust their political systems. Researchers of democracy find that people who believe their personal economic situation is poor or that the national economy is performing poorly express far less trust in their political system than those who are more satisfied with their personal economy or the national economy.

GETTING CONTROL

To the extent that our parties and levels of government can exercise some control over our situation, they must find a way to do so by putting party egos aside. This is the real mandate. It was unfortunate therefore that Mr. Golding used his party's national conference to insult the PNP unnecessarily at the crucial time that the two sides were engaged in efforts at 'constructive engagement', the very thing Mr. Golding had called for in September. There can be no hope of bi-partisanship if the parties do not adhere to a certain level of mutual respect.

It is also true that, in Opposition, the JLP had organised national demonstrations against oil and related price increases in 2005 and regularly walked out of parliament when they wanted to. Now it implores the Opposition to co-operate. But the PNP should remember that it also called for unity when in government and it should know from its experience that one party needs the cooperation of the other to govern, as Mr. Samuda has now admitted. The PNP must also engage to make sure that many of the programmes that it started are maintained, including programmes to strengthen local and community development. In fact, its loss in the local government election should tell the party that something is wrong when it cannot get its supporters out despite its historically stronger record on local government.

Mr. Golding should remember that more than 70 per cent of those who voted for the PNP in September say the country is going in the wrong direction and even 35 per cent of those who had voted for the JLP said the same thing. This should sober him up. His party might have won the local government election but only with a low voter turnout. The electorate was not enthusiastic about the government and government cannot govern without the people's support.

The country's future hangs in the balance and the balance of power between the two parties demands that the parties engage much more constructively and with more humility than they have done since September. If they can do this, people will trust more and the next electoral cycle will reward them.

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