Garth Rattray | Choosing ‘none of the above’

As preparations for the upcoming general elections heat up, we are seeing the beginnings of the usual campaign strategies. Promises and bilateral criticisms are increasing. Well-needed, and long-awaited projects are coming onstream the closer that we get to the election – so much so that some people quip that it’s a pity that general elections do not occur annually.

Despite valiant efforts, the turnout of registered voters has been on the decline for decades. In a recent opinion piece, I referred to the dilemma – “During the 2011 Parliamentary elections, voter turnout was 53.2 per cent, in 2016 it was 48.4 per cent and in 2020, although in that year Jamaica had 1,913,410 registered voters, the voter turnout plummeted to 37.85 per cent. A whopping 62.15 per cent registered voters refused to vote!”

I further stated that, “Low voter turnout is always blamed on ‘voter apathy’, a passive mental state of a lack of interest. However, low voter turnout should be seen as voter abstention, the active process of declining to vote. A small number of voters at the polls sends a big message to our politicians … but they are in denial.”

The only way to drive home this point is if there were a “None of the above” option on ballot sheets. Choosing ‘none of the above’ would make it crystal clear that none of the options (choices) presented are desired. It would send the message that the voter is rejecting the choices given on the ballot. There would be no ambiguity, and no misinterpretation of the feelings being experienced by the registered voters who abstain. There would be no way to label that dismal showing of 37.85 per cent in the last general election as ‘voter apathy’.

ENTIRELY DIFFERENT

Things were entirely different when our citizens felt that there was something important to vote for. The October 30, 1980, general elections saw a voter turnout of 86.91 per cent. That was more than twice the turnout in the most recent general election. Back then, it mattered because there were diametric (opposing) principles of governance. The People’s National Party (PNP) leadership was touting Democratic Socialism and was arm in arm with Fidel Castro (our next door Caribbean socialist neighbour). The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leadership was staunchly traditionally democratic.

Despite the numerous, commendable, and very socio-centric programmes initiated by the PNP, under the stewardship of Michael Manley, they were soundly beaten at the polls and rejected by the nation because of their socialist leaning.

Among several other things, Michael Manley introduced free education from the primary to the tertiary level. This was part of that government’s social reform agenda. It brought about a paradigm shift, the likes of which Jamaica has never seen and will never see again. Children from the poorest of the poor families could become educated at the highest level and engage in top-earning professions. There was the Jamaica Movement for the Advancement of Literacy (JAMAL), the minimum wage for all workers, including domestic workers, the Status of Children’s Act that legitimised all children born to unwed mothers, the establishment of the National Housing Trust, the Rural Electrification Programme, and the Land Reform Programme.

All these magnificent social reforms came at too high a price for most Jamaicans because, throughout all this was the ever-present fear, the spectre of socialism (perceived as communism) hanging over everybody’s head like the sword of Damocles. People felt that their vote would bring about a change, their vote would matter, their vote was important because the ideologies of the 2 political parties (the JLP and the PNP) were so vastly different that they simply could not afford to stay away from the polls. They needed to have their voices heard.

SO MUCH ALIKE

Nowadays Jamaicans believe that the PNP and the JLP are so much alike in their positive and negative traits that deciding between the two is not going to effect much change in how we are governed as a nation. The ramification of mud slinging as a tactic for gaining votes has backfired horribly because the electorate has been [inadvertently] indoctrinated into focusing on the negative things like inefficiencies, short-comings, corruption, and scandals within each party. So, they seek to vote for the lesser of two evils even if one political party is achieving positive things for Jamaica.

The phenomenon of focusing on the bad things and barely noticing the good that politicians do is called negative bias. Neuroscience has proven that there is greater neural processing in the brain in response to negative stimuli. It is a survival adaptation that allows us to pay very close attention to and vividly remember the ‘bad things’.

No matter how many projects and programmes are being undertaken and completed, no matter how much the murder rate has fallen, no matter how modernised our infrastructure has become and is becoming, the registered voters tend to focus on the proclivity for people in power to abuse their privilege with nepotism, feathering their nests, inefficiency, corrupt practices, and unaccountability. Since both political parties have some members who commit those unethical acts and consistently get away with it, potential voters see them as six of one, and half a dozen of the other.

This mislabelled ‘voter apathy’ is becoming more common because voters have become disenchanted with their perception of corrupt and dysfunctional political systems. Politicians should see abstentions as people voting for ‘none of the above’ and change their ways. Until then it’s ‘eenie meenie miney no’ for many citizens.

Garth Rattray is a medical doctor with a family practice, and author of ‘The Long and Short of Thick and Thin’. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and garthrattray@gmail.com