Evonie Blake | Election error, maybe?

It has been decided that COVID-19 patients will be permitted to vote. This is without facing the possibility of an arrest, as was previously purported by a draft document submitted to the Cabinet on August 31. Ironically, this is also the same day Jamaica reported a record 245 COVID-19 positive cases, with an additional death.

Since this declaration, I have observed several negative reactions online, with most people expressing worry and even anger at this decision. For me, on the other hand, the fact that it was even considered to prohibit COVID-19-confirmed persons from voting was a shock in and of itself.

I know there will be mixed views on this stance, and that is completely understandable. One of the most obvious reasons that will arise has to do with the importance of protecting healthy persons from the threat of infection.

When one assesses the current situation in Jamaica, it is quite apparent as to why some persons would deem disallowing such persons pertinent. But before one hastily makes a conclusion based on such sentiments, please pause for a moment to fully ponder its legality. Could this actually have been done? And if it could, would it have contravened the right of eligible individuals to vote? In addition, would this have indicated that COVID-19-positive persons are ineligible voters, and if so, would this have been supported by the Constitution in any way?

WHAT ROPA SAYS

To challenge these questions, I sought answers from the Representation of The People Act (ROPA), which, as the name suggests, is an act that makes provisions for the election of members to the House of Representatives, the franchise for elections, and, in essence, all things electoral.

As one can imagine, it is incredibly detailed and pointed in its terms. The section I found most germane to this situation is Part II, Section 5, Subsection 3. This segment outlines with much specificity the persons who are disallowed from registering as electors and those disqualified from voting in an election.

The relevant conditions, as stated in the act, are quoted below:

(a) the chief electoral officer;

(b) any person who is, under any enactment for the time being in force in Jamaica, certified to be insane or otherwise adjudged to be of unsound mind, or detained as a criminal lunatic;

(c) any person who is under sentence of death imposed on him by a court in any part of the Commonwealth or is serving a sentence of imprisonment (by whatever name called) of or exceeding six months imposed on him by such a court or substituted by competent authority for some other sentence imposed on him by such a court or is under such a sentence of imprisonment, the execution of which is suspended;

(d) any person who is disqualified for registration by or under any enactment for the time being in force in Jamaica because he has been convicted of any offence connected with the election of members of the House of Representatives or of any local authority or body for local purposes; and

(e) any person who is disqualified from voting by reason of his employment for pay or reward in connection with the election in the constituency in which such person would otherwise be entitled to vote.

After reading these stipulations, it became abundantly clear that barring COVID-19-positive persons from voting without infringing on their right to vote could have possibly stirred up issues of legality. If this were to have been done, the Government of Jamaica would have risked venturing down a road that could be likened to disenfranchisement or even voter suppression. Now, if this is actually the case, it has me wondering why it was even considered to begin with. And, by extension, why were there no proposed alternative voting systems.

As much as I would like to assume that our leaders had foreseen this unique challenge, given this state of pandemic, I am even more now less inclined. The hope I had that there will be strict adherence to safety protocols is also a bit wobbly.

I cannot shake the feeling that, like the reopening of our borders, the Government was not meticulously prepared for this election. And if this is preparedness, I shiver at the thought of what unpreparedness would have looked like. I am unconvinced that a prepared government would finalise a decision a few days before the scheduled election.

ASYMPTOMATIC PERSONS

And before you express dissent, here is another angle I would encourage you to examine. There may be asymptomatic persons who turn up to vote, and if they do, they would pose the same threat as those who have been officially confirmed. This is no tall tale, as based on the findings of a South Korean study, asymptomatic COVID-19 patients have shown to carry as much of the virus as symptomatic patients. Therefore, if adequate plans were made for the goose, they would have simultaneously been made for the gander. As such, I echo the question, how truly prepared was the Government?

Though we may have differing perspectives, what is undeniable is the ‘stickiness’ of the situation. I imagine our leaders are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place of decisions regarding this issue. But then again, that comes with the territory of calling an election during the height of one of the worst pandemics in history.

Nonetheless, I urge us all to exercise much discipline, strictness, and common sense during these precarious times. Follow the international and local guidelines of maintaining social distancing, wearing a mask properly in public, and sanitising frequently.

Error in judgement or not, di horse done gone through di gate. As a consequence, we must reassess and recalibrate in order to rebound as victors.

Evonie Blake is a Jamaican educator residing in Japan. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.