Peter Espeut | Gambits and political calculus

In this pre-election silly season we know that politicians of all colours will be on their ‘Ps and Qs’ to avoid wasting valuable (and scarce) political capital. So when you see blatant missteps, you know that desperation is setting in. The fear of losing power – and the privileges that it implies – makes otherwise careful people throw caution to the wind; the results of their political calculations lead them to take actions which bend the rules, or even break the law.

Can holding a late-night party tonight at Fort Rocky on the Palisadoes strip be so crucial to winning the upcoming general election that the Ministry of Culture, Gender, Entertainment and Sport is prepared to destroy sensitive ecosystems in a legally protected area to do so?

Apparently!

As I would say to my mathematics students when I was in the classroom: “How did you get that answer? Show me your “working”. Frankly I do not understand the political calculus where the gain in political capital can be shown to exceed the losses from being exposed as an enemy of environmental protection and conservation.

THEY DON’T CARE

Clearly it means that they don’t really care about sustainable development, no matter what their manifesto may claim. People with a mentality of “development-at-all-costs” are quite prepared to take short-term political advantage at the expense of a healthy natural environment, which has negative long-term implications for human welfare.

Is it that they thought that actions in plain sight would not be found out? Is it that they thought nobody would raise a ruckus about environmental terrorism in a protected area? Or is it that they believe that not enough people care about the environment – that the number of voters that love a late-night party far exceed the number who will be outraged? Or is it that they expect a low turnout at the polls, with the size of their hard core and bought-and-paid-for supporters large enough to carry the day, no matter how many environmentally-minded voters they alienate?

This latter is called political arrogance, a not uncommon characteristic of this administration.

The only way they can recover lost political capital is for heads to roll. Someone must resign or be fired, and since the destruction was a criminal act, someone must be arrested and charged and face a court of law.

But don’t hold your breath! It will never happen! It is rare for a Jamaican politician or politically-appointed public servant to be held accountable for their wrong-headed or illegal actions, no matter how egregious. Crony governments protect their own.

As the political opinion polls continue to predict a forthcoming change of government, in their anxiety about the possibility of losing, the ruling party has been prepared to take greater and greater risks. It does not take a Nostradamus to predict that the rushing through parliament of the constitutional amendment which extends the term of the current director of public prosecutions would cause a public furore, but they did it anyway. They alone know the political calculus that justified that action.

I would love to know it!

Forcing through the legislature the bill to create a 15th civil parish without meaningful consultation was bound to lead to public demonstrations and political fallout, but they did it anyway. Where a few percentage points in voter support can make a real difference to an electoral outcome, what Realpolitik would lead to a rush to create a thirteenth civil parish at this time? I would love to see the “working” from that political calculus!

NOW

There was a political calculus involved in putting arrangements in place to obtain NOW the revenue from the operations over the next 12 years of the Norman Manley International Airport. Money had to be spent NOW to possibly increase political capital. Using it NOW means that those billions will not be available over the next twelve years, creating holes in future budgets which will have to be plugged somehow; but that is the cost/benefit calculus that then Finance Minister and Rhodes Scholar Nigel Clarke had to make. (Who to tell that his secret plan was to shaft a future People’s National Party government which would not have that money to spend).

We know that former Minister Clarke would have done the mathematics surrounding the massive 200 plus per cent salary increase he game himself and his colleagues some time ago; and we could see that he also did the related political calculus, for he made sure to conclude the wage negotiations with most of the public sector unions before announcing the disproportionate increase for politicians.

But was his political calculus valid? Can we make a connection between the massive shift of support away from the ruling party that was reflected in the local government elections a year ago? And will that huge fat salary scandal impact on the upcoming general elections?

Here we are again: in an election year salary negotiations are due, and the public sector unions will not be cowed a second time. Possibly this is a case where the political calculus was shallow – did not look far enough ahead. (Or maybe I could be cynical and say that Rhodes Scholar Clarke did, and abandoned ship in good time!) The best chess players can foresee the game many more moves ahead than their opponents.

We who are spectators in the political chess game being played around us need to keep our eyes wide open, and watch out for the whys and wherefores. The opening salvo in the budget debate by the current Minister of Finance is but another gambit, which must be carefully analysed. We are the ones to keep our public servants in check, and the ones who have the power to say: “checkmate!”

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