A.W. SangsterPOLITICS", wrote Paul Valery, "is the means of preventing people from taking part in what properly concerns them." We certainly are in interesting times with the proposal by the Director of Elections to remove all those who have previously served as presiding officers and poll clerks.
I would argue that the Director of Elections can administratively do this, in spite of the protest of the JLP who argue that this is the province of the EAC.
Quite apart from the operational responsibilities of the Director of Elections, the EAC does not currently exist in a functional way and if the positions of the two political parties are anything to go by, the committee could be non-functional for some time to come. This would in itself be a blow to the election improvement process.
Mr. Walker has the authority to fire - or alternatively to replace with other persons - the current crop of presiding officers and poll clerks, but in so doing he may be throwing out a lot of good babies with the proverbial bath water. Certainly it would be a matter of concern to the CAFFE volunteers who served as poll clerks and presiding officers in a time of real need. Is there a way to weed out the bad eggs without dismissing everyone? Maybe Mr. Walker should review his position and find a way to keep the good people.
The bad eggs at the voting stations are simply a reflection of the endemic corruption in the political system. It has led on the one hand to the disaffection with the national political leadership and the feeling of hopelessness that is currently engulfing the society. On the other hand it is creating the anger that is being directed at local politicians, and the security forces that are increasingly being seen as the enemies of the people.
Many persons, the polls tell us, are so disenchanted that they have no intention of voting and have dismissed the political system as corrupt, incompetent or irrelevant. Thus there is a large body of either uncommitted or disenchanted voters who see no hope or future in the political system.
To quote from a paper by the Rev. Al Miller which addresses the present political situation, "polarisation, divisiveness along with tribalism, corruption, crime and injustice are so ingrained in the national fabric that it is difficult to see or even believe for real change. To date all attempts to tackle these problems have failed, because the solution demands cutting across the political divide with all the attendant problems, a task that has so far proven futile."
The above, begs the question as to what are the political options for Jamaica in the near future? The following would seem to be some of the alternative scenarios which might be played out.
The PNP gains a fourth term. On the face of it, this seems a likely scenario despite its very poor performance, since the Opposition JLP remains a fragmented and incoherent Opposition and people are still distrustful of the NDM, arguing that the leopard cannot change its spots. Clearly with a large percentage of disenchanted voters who might stay away from the polls, the PNP's well-oiled election machinery could win the day, even with a smaller voter turnout. The incumbent government would be driven by the desire to retain power at all costs, irrespective of that cost to the country as a whole.
A JLP/NDM Coalition. The polls suggest that voters would react positively to such a development. However recent history does not seem to be too propitious for such a possibility. Certainly the position of the JLP leader that there must be the proverbial 'singing of sankeys and lighting of candles", does not augur well for a rapprochement with the NDM which articulates a different position from the old style politics. However the experience of Trinidad and Tobago some years ago may be worth reflecting on, as it was a coalition of a number of rather disparate political groups under the leadership of A.N.R. Robinson that removed the deeply entrenched PNM from power.
A Government of National Unity. There is a third option which, as the title suggests would involve some kind of common agreement with the three political parties coming together in the national interest and for the survival of the country. There would have to a recognition that there is a common enemy - in this case, crime, violence, corruption and financial disaster - which would drive this initiative. There are those who see this as a viable alternative which would have a number of important advantages. Such a government of national unity could achieve some desirable ends such as:
Help to unify the nation and to break down the current divisions that prevent united action.
Provide an environment of trust with the capacity to work in harmony to achieve common national goals.
Allow for the breaking down of the tribalistic barriers which are built on the spoils of office.
Bring into focus the aspirations of the Jamaican people and liberate their creative capacity.
Create a spirit of national unity such as has been demonstrated by the support for the Reggae Boys and which Mr. Michael Manley achieved in the first couple of years of his administration in the early 70s and which he subsequently blew.
Is such an option possible? It would send a wonderful message to the Jamaican people and to the wider world that we can work together for the common good of the nation. Certainly there would need to be much 'give' on all sides for the proposal to have any chance of success. The real question is whether the achievement or retention of power is more important than the overall good of the nation.
A.W. Sangster is former president of the University of Technology.
