Peter Espeut | Jamaica’s patronage politics

I was intrigued by the results of an opinion poll conducted in February this year by the Mona Centre for Leadership and Governance at The University of the West Indies. The poll found that only a little over one-third (36 per cent) of Jamaica’s lower classes had little to no interest in Jamaican politics, compared to about half (49 per cent) of Jamaica’s quite small upper class holding the same views.

The former group – the largest segment of the population – largely provides the votes, while the latter – and the private-sector firms they control – provides the vast majority of the funding for Jamaica’s political parties.

Disinterest in Jamaican politics is highest among the Jamaican upper-middle classes (73 per cent) and lower-middle classes (70 per cent), from whose ranks the vast majority of political candidates are drawn. This is the best educated group, constituting the majority of the civil service and middle management in the private sector; and is the least dependent on government handouts.

It is harder for persons in the lower classes to be politically neutral, since needed scarce benefits and political spoils like bushing, roadwork, Christmas work and overseas farmwork are distributed along political lines. Many residential neighbourhoods created by one ruling party or the other were populated initially by the party faithful, and retain their ‘garrison’ character to a greater or lesser degree, which is all about votes in the ballot box at election time.

I did the fieldwork for my master’s degree in development studies in a small community in the foothills of the John Crow Mountains in St Thomas – Kumina country! I was there doing research, but community members were studying me: “To what nation do you belong?” “Are you a Christian?” “Why are you asking us all these questions?”

But the question most frequently asked of me was: “To which political party do you belong?” They would not take ‘none’ for an answer. “How do you live, then?” “Where did you get your money from?” “Who pays you to come and live up here and do this research?” For these rural folk – and so many others – political apathy means deeper poverty, and is unthinkable. Political affiliation is an essential survival strategy.

MENTAL SLAVERY

That was the 1980s, and things have changed somewhat; but party affiliation remains part of the mental slavery from which we need to be emancipated.

Lower-class persons are learning to use their votes to leverage benefits for themselves and their families; and in the context of low voter turnout, the price of a vote is rising, not falling. It does not suit such persons to appear politically neutral: they must sell their vote to the highest bidder. I am surprised that lower-class voter apathy is as high as 36 per cent.

Both the private sector and our political parties have (so far) successfully resisted efforts to bring transparency to the whole matter of political donations; they will know why. The extent to which many private-sector firms depend upon government contracts and a favourable regulatory environment has not been adequately researched, either by university academics or investigative journalists. Big business cannot influence politics through the ballot box, and therefore must do so by buying influence through strategic political donations. The situation is a win-win, and therefore both parties wish to keep the details of their alliance shrouded in secrecy.

Whether it is the Jamaica Labour Party’s Manatt-Dudus affair, or the People’s National Party’s Trafigura scandal, answers like “I cannot recall” and “I do not know” typify the commitment of politicians to truth and transparency.

The poll conducted by the Mona Centre for Leadership and Governance shows that about half of the upper classes surveyed admit an interest in politics. The system cannot survive without the funding they provide. COVID-19 policy and environmental policy are driven neither by science nor some public relations “balance” between “lives and livelihoods” or between “the environment and development”. It’s the economy, stoopid! It’s about the money. It’s always about the money.

‘CLIENTELISM’

Some people call it political patronage; Carl Stone called it “clientelism”. The job of the politician (the political patron) is to make his constituents (clients) dependent upon him and the favours he can deliver. When it comes to the relationship between the politician and the private sector, one is not sure who is the patron and who is the client!

The sleeping giant, of course, is the growing middle class – the most apathetic group of people, possessing the greatest migration potential, but yet embodying the greatest possibility of being the cause of social change. Civil society pressure groups are made up mostly of the middle class. Holding them back is their innate conservatism.

As the corruption scandals mount, and become more egregious, things may approach a breaking point. Until now, many have been satisfied simply to withdraw from the process, but other options may present themselves. We cannot expect those who presently benefit so richly from a corrupt system to voluntarily mash up the ‘dolly house’.

Peter Espeut is an environmentalist and a development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.