Editorial | Chance to end Portmore folly

Maybe the Government has good reasons for its further postponement of municipal elections. They are not the ones it publicly stated.

Indeed, few people believe the argument that the exercise is too expensive at a time when the Government needs the money to spend on other things, because the global economy might go south; or that the administration requires more time to establish Portmore as a parish in its own right, rather than continue as a municipality in the parish of St Catherine.

Short of the Government going to Parliament and reversing itself, it is too late to rescind this latest poke at democracy. Yet, it is important to register why, in the absence of greater transparency and truth-telling, the move is wrong.

It is not too late, though, for the Government to abandon the folly of making Portmore a parish. That move will not give its municipal government any more power, but would potentially whittle away rights its citizens now enjoy.

To be clear, this newspaper has for a long time not been enamoured of Jamaica’s local government system. It is far from the consequential institutions of many decades ago. These days, the municipal authorities are made up mostly of third-rate politicians who largely behave as divisional/constituency postmen and gophers for the members of parliament of their party, especially if their party forms the Government.

STRONG SENTIMENT

However, we believe in democracy and accept that even if the majority of people do not vote in municipal elections, there is a strong sentiment in the country for local government. The councils, in a sense, give legal expression to the concept of subsidiarity – that decisions that impact communities should be taken close to the people they affect. Indeed, so invested is the Jamaican political process in the municipal system that nearly eight years ago, in May 2015, the right of local government was put into the Constitution. That was recommended by an earlier constitutional commission.

Neither of the two big political parties could have accomplished that on its own. Even if a proponent had the two-thirds vote to pass the necessary bill in the House of Representatives, it would need the support of at least one opposition member of the Senate for it to clear the legislature. Further, there had to be delays of three months between the bill’s tabling and its debate, and a further three months between the debate and the vote.

Municipal elections were last held in November 2016. The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), which governs nationally, won most of the 14 councils. The next vote should have been in 2020, or by February 2021.

That they were postponed for a year because of the COVID-19 pandemic is understandable, even though a national poll, which returned the JLP to office, was held in September 2020. Last January, the vote was delayed for another year. That happened again this week.

The Portmore claim apart, the Government’s argument for the further delay is the estimated J$1-billion bill for the vote. That is a high monetary cost, the Government says, at a time of “uncertainty in the global economic environment” and “the existence of a number of critical budget priorities that need to be given precedence at this time”.

We fully appreciate the need for fiscal prudence and that events could emerge to derail Jamaica’s economic recovery. Those are the unknowns.

What is known, though, is that in 2022 the economy grew by over five per cent, recouping, according to official estimates, all of the value it lost during the pandemic. It is projected to grow by over two per cent in the coming fiscal year.

Moreover, the finance minister, Nigel Clarke, has boasted that tax revenues have galloped beyond projections. The primary balance for the current fiscal year will be nearly six per cent of GDP. It will be over five per cent in 2023-2024.

DOES NOT CUT IT

Notwithstanding questions about the price placed on democracy and all that, the claim that the price tag is the problem does not cut it.

The potential upside from all of this, however, is that the Government has an opportunity to reconsider the proposal for Portmore and to let the idea die. What it should be doing is rationalising the number of municipal authorities – creating fewer rather than more, and allowing for economies of scale – and giving them greater autonomy.

As a city municipality under the Local Governance Act of 2016, the Portmore Municipal Council has very much the same powers as parishes. It can enter into contracts, hold property and employ staff. It is also responsible for the delivery of designated services, ensuring civic order and creating plans for the development of the municipality

More significantly, the nearly 200,000 residents of Portmore City Municipality directly elect their mayor – the only one of the local government authorities where citizens enjoy this democratic right. In the 13 parish-based municipal authorities, the chairman of the council is chosen by his colleagues among elected councillors. The councillors can vote to remove their chairman.

In the case of Portmore, if 25 per cent of its registered voters sign a petition, it can institute a process for his investigation, and possible removal, by Parliament. Unless the law is changed, that right would be lost if Portmore became a parish.

If Portmore does not work, it has to do with structural issues and the quality of leadership ­– which is common across the system.