Editorial | Chris Brown’s intervention 

Christopher Brown, the Opposition’s spokesman on science and technology, made compelling observations about the disengagement of Jamaicans from the political process and why legislators should be concerned about, and be at the forefront of efforts to stem, this retreat.

Mr Brown reopened an issue that has been subjected to periodic but insufficiently sustained debate in Jamaica — at least not by the right people: practising politicians. In that regard, this is hopefully not a mere passing flash, driven by soundbites aimed at showcasing his appreciation of ‘big’ issues and grabbing headlines. If it is, in fact, something deeper, The Gleaner’s Editorial Board looks forward to his elevated, genuinely non-partisan articulation of the concerns he raised in Parliament on June 2 during his contribution to the Sectoral Debate.

Indeed, while the freshman member of parliament’s analysis of the problem was largely correct, his proposed solution was clearly incomplete. He focused almost solely on the institution of government and its performance, and found it wanting. He largely ignored, or insufficiently addressed, the institutional mechanics of the island’s politics — how political parties, including his own People’s National Party (PNP), function.

In short, Mr Brown came up short on the morality of politics.

Of great importance, however, Christopher Brown reminded his colleagues of the statistics reflecting Jamaicans’ retreat from politics and the political process: declining voter turnout — 37 per cent of the registered electorate in 2020, when the general election was held in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic; and 39 per cent in 2025, when there was no COVID-like constraint to voting.

This, Mr Brown concluded, was something “bigger than any one administration — bigger than any one side of this chamber” to solve. It was a reflection, he argued, of disenchantment with government as an institution and a failure to deliver on citizens’ aspirations and needs.

“A growing number of Jamaicans, especially young Jamaicans, have concluded that it does not matter who is in power because the system does not work for them, regardless,” he said.

He added: “This is a verdict not at the ballot, but by staying away from it. And it is a verdict that every single person in this chamber, on both sides of the aisle, should find deeply troubling. Because when people disengage from government, the feedback loop that holds government accountable breaks. And when that breaks down, the incentive to deliver, rather than merely announce, weakens further. It is a cycle, and it is dangerous.

“... Beyond the politics and partisan contentions, people simply want government to work.”

There is little in those remarks that any rational, or even merely sentient, Jamaican would dispute. Citizens want their government to deliver the services that are its responsibility and pursue policies that will make Jamaica, in accordance with the Vision 2030 pledge, “the place of choice to live, work, raise families, and do business”.

Except that Mr Brown pivoted solely to the perceived failings of the administration — its governance, its emphasis on announcements, and the “death by acronyms” to which it has subjected Jamaicans.

Of course, the greater responsibility for fixing society’s problems rests with the government, which must operate effectively, efficiently, and with integrity. This obligation persists despite global frameworks that, over the past four decades, have contributed to the hollowing out of states, rendering them less capable of responding to citizens’ needs and demands.

Put another way, voters expect governments that are both competent and moral. Which raises the neglected element of Mr Brown’s parliamentary intervention: in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy, to which Jamaica subscribes, governments are not entities formed by individuals who independently win constituency votes and whose philosophies or principles merely coincide.

Rather, they are generally outgrowths of political parties with pre-declared ideologies and philosophies to which their members subscribe. Parties compete for power in elections and, as Mr Brown noted, the winning group enters into a compact with citizens on deliverables.

The shadow minister posited that these compacts have broken down. Insufficiently explored was: why?

Mr Brown’s implicit contention is the inefficiency and incompetence of the State, with a heavy dose of finger-pointing at the current administration. There was also some scrutiny of its governance issues.

However, Jamaicans’ concerns extend beyond the perceived efficiency of the State, and political engagement is unlikely to improve dramatically even if people’s material circumstances do.

There is a question of trust — or mistrust. Nearly 90 per cent of Jamaicans, based on Vanderbilt University’s LAPOP research laboratory survey on democracy in the Americas, believe that public officials, including politicians, are corrupt. Large segments of the citizenry lack confidence in state institutions. While 53 per cent of adults supported democracy (down from 79 per cent in 2006), only 28 per cent, in 2023, were satisfied with how it worked. Indeed, nearly half of Jamaicans said they would tolerate a military coup to fight corruption, if personal freedoms, including freedom of expression, were guaranteed.

After the 2020 elections, Dr Peter Phillips, then leader of Mr Brown’s party, noted the political disengagement and candidly acknowledged the political “missteps” that contributed to it — including, of course, the extreme partisanship and ideological divisions that brought Jamaica close to civil conflict in the late 1970s and 1980.

Dr Phillips called for effective action to address the worsening problem. Insufficient progress has been made. Mr Brown’s intervention could be important in kick-starting a new conversation. He can go further by insisting that his party look within itself to weed out corrupt and other potentially bad actors whose presence may further erode trust.