Warmy's Warning

“The difficulty lies not so much in developing new ideas as in escaping from old ones.” John Maynard Keynes     

Mr. Everald Warmington
Google Photo

This past week, the Member of Parliament for South West St. Catherine, Mr. Everald Warmington had us talking, again. I wish I had the transcript but in its absence I'll rely on other sources to refresh my memory. If you can hear or see beyond the shock value of his utterances you'll get to issues worthy of serious thought. 

The crux of Mr. Warmington's argument seems to have been; if you don't vote you don't count. If you don't vote you have no business asking for government assistance. If you don't vote, unlike some thirty of so countries, there are no real consequences. 

Problem is that as offensive as these utterances were to many, we intuitively and for many, practically, know that this is the reality. "A suh di ting set". Mr. Warmington didn't say anything we didn't know, we just didn't want to hear it from an elected representative. Let's start with the recent kerfuffle with the Jamaica Labour Party and those Senate "resignations" - signed undated letters used to clean house. And what about Boards of Directors appointed to public entities - all asked to resign or summarily ejected with every change of government? 

The right to vote in a democracy is sacred, but in Jamaica the duty to vote is treated with scant regard by a large segment of qualified voters. Our voter’s list has grown healthily since 1944 but our rate of participation hasn't kept pace. I have lots of theories as to why but I keep coming back to what I most frequently hear; it doesn't matter - nothing is going to change. A vicious circle; if you don't vote nothing will change and if nothing changes you see no reason to vote. Chicken or egg?

The country will not, in my view, arise from its apathetic slumber until we see tangible and meaningful evidence that our votes matter. Some of us will vote regardless of the outcome, but we cannot continue to build a government based on 28.2% of the total qualified voters, as was the case in the last general election. A point also made by Ken Jones in his piece “Remedying Voter Apathy”, and appropriately dubbed, “electile dysfunction” by Ronald Mason.

I continue to believe, until I am proven wrong, that we are being hamstrung by a constitution which cannot serve us in the present nor will it serve is in the future. It guarantees that our elected representatives must first serve the best interest of their party at the expense of the populace. It ensures the victors are rewarded with ministries or worse, ministries without portfolios which bloat the cabinet at the expense of schools, hospitals, roads, water and other basic necessities for civilized living. It makes it impossible for an elected representative to vote his/her conscience for fear of incurring the wrath of the party leader. It reduces the cabinet to a collection of placeholders instead of a body armed with the skills and competences needed to manage a ministry in a modern and ever global time. It renders the notion of service to country through elected office unattractive to our brightest and best leaving only the most partisan to pursue a career in political life.

Most egregiously, it promises and delivers a never ending recycling of those who hold fast to the status quo until death do they part, locking out new ideas.

Year	Total Electorate	% Votes Cast	Party forming govt	# of Votes to form the govt	% of All  Voters to    form the govt
1944	663,069	59%	JLP	161,138	24.3%
1949	732,217	65%	PNP	207,671	28.4%
1955	761,238	65%	PNP	250,338	32.9%
1959	853,539	66%	PNP	309,129	36.2%
1962*	796,540	73%	JLP	290,491	36.5%
1967	543,307	82%	JLP	226,312	41.7%
1972	605,662	79%	PNP	269,258	44.5%
1980*	990,417	87%	JLP	502,174	50.7%
1983*	990,586	29%	JLP	257,040	25.9%
1989	1,078,760	78%	PNP	473,752	43.9%
1993	1,002,599	60%	PNP	358,994	35.8%
1997	1,182,294	65%	PNP	429,807	36.4%
2002	1,301,334	59%	PNP	396,370	30.5%
2007	1,336,307	61%	JLP	410,401	30.7%
2011	1,648,036	53%	PNP	464,418	28.2%

Data source: Electoral Office of Jamaica

Political Party Renewal

 

Photo credit - Google

 

“If you do not change direction, you may end up where you are heading.” Lao Tzu

I’ve been watching and listening to the current Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) leadership challenge fracas, as keenly as I did that of the People’s National Party (PNP); back when Mrs. Simpson-Miller had her turn. My conclusion then is the same now, both parties could benefit from an extraordinary change in culture which will give more eligible Jamaican voters a solid reason to engage in the political process. It won’t be easy and it will take time.

Start by changing the party's constitution to impose term limits; that way challenges will not be to the sitting leader, unless he/she is completely inept, corrupt or otherwise. Term limits will ensure that there is always healthy competition at the second tier and that the organization maintains a robust leadership pipeline; a consistent flow of new ideas. It prevents stagnation and atrophy whilst warding of the onset of an entitlement syndrome. Try it, you'll like it and it will send a powerful signal that the party really wants to renew itself.





Andrew Holness
Opposition & JLP Leader
Photo credit - Google





Our political leaders ought not to serve at their leisure; they’re not lifers occupying a jail cell, passing time. How dare they make what should be a healthy competition into a fight for scraps! On the one hand we have a hand-picked parvenu whose claim to fame is youth; as if good ideas are the exclusive purview of the young. On the other hand we have another whose claim to fame is experience; as if we don’t know that there’s a marked difference between a year’s experience repeated ten times and ten years’ experience. Who cares? Too few, and that’s the crux of the matter.

Audley Shaw
Photo credit - Google

 

Should you even care? Absolutely, because ours is a Westminster modeled democracy which requires an intelligent and useful opposition to temper the excesses of any overbearing party in government. The fact is that, as a nation, we generally do not care. You don’t have to take my word for it the data can be found on the Electoral Office of Jamaica’s website but just in case you can’t be bothered, I’ve plucked some out for you. Stare at them and make what you will of them but I’ll wager you’ll come back to the same place and ask why can’t we consistently engage at least 70% of voting age citizens? I can’t prove it, but I’m convinced leadership has something to do with it.

 

Year	Total Electorate	% Votes Cast	% PNP	% JLP
1944	663,069	58.70	23.50	41.40
1949	732,217	65.20	43.50	42.70
1955	761,238	65.12	50.50	39.03
1959	853,539	66.09	54.80	44.30
1962*	796,540	72.88	48.59	50.04
1967	543,307	82.24	49.08	50.65
1972	605,662	78.88	56.36	43.40
1980*	990,417	86.91	40.67	58.34
1983*	990,586	29.48	00.00	88.02
1989	1,078,760	78.38	56.03	42.89
1993	1,002,599	60.28	59.40	39.05
1997	1,182,294	65.22	55.74	38.57
2002	1,301,334	59.04	51.59	46.92
2007	1,336,307	61.46	49.35	49.97
2011	1,648,036	53.17	53.00	46.30

How telling is it that in its 75 years the People's National Party has only had 4 leaders with the first two having 54 years between them and by the way, they were father and son? And as for the JLP, don’t think your 6 leaders in 70 years is anything to celebrate; with both Donald Sangster and Hugh Shearer having acted as leaders. More telling is the fact that between Alexander Bustamante and Edward Seaga they served as party leaders for a combined 61 of the party’s 70 years. Should we even wonder why the party is where it is today?

I can only hope that after the dust settles it would have been worth the mudslinging and maybe, just maybe the party can become a real opposition. I won’t hold my breath though for I’m neither suicidal nor naïve.

Thanks to Ms. Dionne Jackson-Miller (@djmillerJA) for pointing out that Donald Sangster and Hugh Shearer acted, which may not count.