Ronald Thwaites | It could be so different

Jamaica followed the British tradition of electing political representatives by a first past the post system. This has meant governments with large seat majorities in the legislature but with a miniscule majority of the popular vote. Conceivably, a party which is not the choice of the voting electorate could win the plurality of seats. Under this arrangement dominated by two major parties, third groupings and individuals have little chance of election and large swaths of citizens who do not support the winning party have no talk at all.

How democratic is that? Hasn’t this way of doing things embedded the crippling tribalism of our independence experience? Surely the form of governance must fit the purposes of government. In our situation, the intractable problems of inequality of opportunity cannot be solved except by broad political consensus around a shared vision and praxis of the common good. That’s not happening here: at best not consistently.

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

So why is it that the Constitutional Reform Committee appears to have endorsed the continuation of this inherently flawed system. Surely a robust and thorough discussion of this issue should be foremost on the agenda of any reform process. But it is not. The alternative of proportional representation is being deliberately avoided.

Look at last week’s election in the United Kingdom. The British Labour Party has won a huge majority of seats although polling only 34 per cent of the votes. This is of course a flip of the Conservative Party’s dominance in the previous election cycle. Prime Minister Keir Starmer makes the routine promises to govern in the interests of those who did not vote Labour, undertakings many will know better than to rely on, not because he is a charlatan but because the tools at his disposal do not sufficiently promote fairness and effectiveness.

INEVITABLE FAILURE

It’s the same in Jamaica. A mere few thousand votes have separated our two parties in increasingly lower turnout contests which nonetheless occasion big majorities, much triumphalism and eventually disappointment in Gordon House – as is happening, cyclically, right now. Available talent is sidelined, the winner will take all in the next election; the referendum will be contested on a partisan basis and the public interest will be less-served.

THE STAND-OFF

A few weeks ago, retired prime minister P.J. Patterson reminded that a measure of agreement between the political parties, whose very existence the present constitution avoids, will be essential for any constitutional change. Nobody can deny this. Since then what steps have been taken to achieve this? None. Instead the country’s leaders are ramping up a campaign which will only perpetuate the stand-off which cramps the progress for which we yearn and of which we are capable.

Of course I have my preference as to which political tendency could do better for us all. But I am equally certain, from experience and observation, that neither the JLP or the PNP, working alone, can take us the distance the nation needs to achieve in health, education, security and total factor productivity. Plenty people sense this and it is the big reason why they see little purpose in voting or in committing their energies to nation-building.

It could be so different.

REVENGE OF THE CONQUERED

Miss Lou is chuckling in heaven at the “colonisation in reverse” which is happening in Britain and other former colonial powers. Three generations ago who could have imagined a descendant of West Indian slaves, David Lammy, becoming foreign secretary in Empress Victoria’s realm. And who could have foreseen that after relentlessly raping their colonial empires, and latterly setting up financial and commercial structures to continue that rapine, Europe (and America) find themselves dependent on migrant labour from the “colonies” yet are mortally fearful that they will lose their essence because of the same inevitable browning which Lady Nugent (like Donald Trump, Marine LePen, Rishi Sunak and Giorgia Meloni) so dreaded. What an ironic way for reparations to be extracted even as Brexit is repented.

DON’T GELD LOCAL GOVERNMENT

When there is disaster is when local government is most useful. In the aftermath of Beryl, it is the councillors who should be empowered in their divisions to marshal relief efforts. They, more than anyone else, know the needs at the most granular level. They should have the principal role in dispensing the relief assistance which, to his credit, Nigel Clarke has husbanded for a time like this. Instead, the Municipal Corporations have to look to Central Government for every quattie they need. In my division, the councillor is never seen or noticed because he has nothing to offer. It is pointless engaging him about urgent public works because all he can do is to make the same begging phone call to some ministry or agency which citizens can do for themselves, probably with greater effect if he/she is on the wrong side of the political fence. Why allow creeping authoritarianism and centralization to disempower us?

DIVES AND LAZARUS

What is likely is that plenty of money is going to be spent, much of it ineffectually; the greedy will never be satisfied and the needy never assuaged. In Britain despite massive spending, the public services of health, education and housing were found seriously lacking. Pointing to the big expenditure, the Tories just couldn’t understand why the electorate wasn’t more appreciative. With a few notable exceptions, the same scenario applies here. Truthfully, it is more galling here, because like Dives in the Bible, the ruling class of elected leaders have engorged themselves with fat salaries before allowing their ‘what-lef’ to reach to the multitude of Lazaruses among us. The injustice becomes particularly hurtful in times of emergency when the thickness and inadequacy of bureaucracy asserts itself, no matter how much Nigel disburses or Andrew and the others pose with the care packages.

Once again , conditions for the majority could be so much better if only we cared to get out of our own way.

Rev Ronald G. Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. He is former member of parliament for Kingston Central and was the minister of education. He is the principal of St Michael’s College at The UWI. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.