Editorial | Why listen to ECJ

It has long been the convention that when the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) makes reform proposals to Parliament, they are adopted without demur.

There are good reasons for this. These include the modern history of Jamaica’s politics and the structure of the commission.

For those who are without the institutional memory, or have not bothered to acquaint themselves with the facts, or view matters only through the coloured spectacles of partisanship, it is useful that we are reminded of the origins of the ECJ and its predecessor, the Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC).

In October 1980, Jamaicans voted in a largely ideologically framed general election, the campaign for which was bitter and bloody. More than 800 people were murdered that year. Large numbers of those deaths were related to politics. It is common ground that the island was close to a civil war.

It is remarkable that although the election was contentious and that voting was marked by significant pockets of violence, people accepted that the outcome represented the will of the people. The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), which was in Opposition, massively defeated the governing People’s National Party (PNP), winning 51 of Parliament’s then 60 seats.

That the credibility of the outcome was so readily endorsed was due in no small measure to the work of the EAC and its chairman, the late Professor Gladstone Mills.

Even before 1980, Jamaican elections were notorious for their irregularities, especially in so-called garrison communities. Intimidation and corralling of voters were not uncommon, as were the stuffing and stealing of ballot boxes. In some constituencies, there were regularly more counted votes than registered voters.

COLLAPSE IN ELECTORAL SYSTEM

By the end of the 1970s, confidence had collapsed in the island’s electoral system. The parties, the PNP and the JLP, to their credit, agreed that things could not continue the way they had been.

That was the context in which the EAC, anchored in law (an amendment of the Representation of the People Act), was established in 1979 to remove elections from the direct control of governments. Under the old EAC arrangement, two members each were appointed by the prime minister and the Opposition leader. They, in turn, recommended three other persons for appointment by the governor general. The EAC then appointed the director of elections.

The first major undertaking by Professor Mills’ committee was the re-registration of voters to ensure that the electoral list was clean. Indeed, in early 1980 Prime Minister Michael Manley pledged that he would not call an election until a new list was ready.

In the mid-2000s, the EAC, which had continued with the transformational work, transitioned to the ECJ. Its substantial difference from its predecessor is that its four independent members are the direct choice of the governor general – not a consequence of the failure of the political representatives to agree on the candidates.

The ECJ is responsible for the technical and administrative aspects of elections. It also makes recommendations to Parliament to improve the system. It also acts as Parliament’s de facto electoral boundaries committee, recommending the configuration of constituencies within parishes.

Up to now, Parliament has always acted on the EAC’s and ECJ’s recommendations.

The system works because by the time an ECJ position emerges as formal recommendations, they have been subjected to rigorous internal debate and a consensus arrived at. If the political representatives disagreed on a matter, one side had to at least convince the majority of the independent members for its position to carry.

EXPECTATION

In the context of this history, it would be expected that if the ECJ stated a position to the Government, or to Parliament, or entered, or made known its reservation or concern about any matter before the legislature, then that concern or reservation would, at the very least, be acknowledged.

Which is not what happened with respect to the Government’s controversial move to make Portmore, currently a city municipality in the parish of St Catherine, Jamaica’s 15th parish.

The House and the Senate passed legislation to that effect last week. It is now to be signed by the governor general and formally promulgated.

On the eve of the Senate vote, it emerged that in June last year the ECJ’s chairman, Earl Jarrett, wrote to the local government ministry, advising that the delimited boundaries of the proposed new parish crossed into the electoral constituencies of an existing parish. That would breach Jamaica’s Constitution.

Mr Jarrett also pointed to discrepancies in the boundaries (indicated) on various documents.

In February, with the bill about to be debated, Mr Jarret this time wrote to Parliament, expressing the ECJ’s constitutional concerns.

The ECJ confirmed to this newspaper that it received no response to either letter.

During the Senate debate, there were aside comments that the ECJ’s concerns could be addressed after the fact.

And perhaps it can. In the strict legal sense.

But that was not the spirit in which the ECJ and its predecessor, the EAC, were established. The aim was to establish consensus around electoral/voting issues, and to prevent hardened positions of the kind that brought Jamaica’s democracy to the brink.

It was this approach that allowed Jamaica a world-class, globally respected electoral system.

It is important that Jamaica learn from history.