Editorial | Deeper political reform

This newspaper strongly supports the need for a major overhaul of the way Jamaica’s legislators do their jobs.

But that doesn’t mean throwing more taxpayers’ money at them to further entrench the politics of patronage, and must start with political parties reforming the way they conduct their business. There is no reason, for instance, even in the current dispensation, for government backbenchers to be mere desk-thump, programmable bots, who cheer on ministers, regardless. Or to seem that they are doing so.

In this regard, The Gleaner welcomes the reprise last week of the discussion of what constituents ought to expect of their parliamentary representatives, by Horace Chang and Dayton Campbell, the general secretaries, respectively, of the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People’s National Party (PNP).

But the more relevant starting point for a debate of the issues they touched on in separate forums with editors of The Gleaner were the ones addressed by Peter Phillips, the former leader of the PNP and outgoing member of parliament (MP) for St Andrew East Central.

It is not that what Drs Chang and Campbell spoke of was not important.

Rightly, they argued for more resources for MPs to employ research staff to help in preparation for their legislative work. But there was no clarity, in our view, of an appreciation of the need for deeper systemic changes to say how Parliament functions, the MP’s perceived role as constituency economic patron and service provider, and, more fundamentally, how participants in the political process interact with each other in the cause of national development.

WEAKENING

It was the weakening of this engagement in the years since Independence, and the fact that the country’s greatest gains have been during periods of collaboration, that was the primary focus of Dr Phillips’ contribution to the sectoral debate.

“The overarching lesson of our years as an independent nation is the fact that all our great accomplishments have been the result of collective endeavours,” he said.

Examples of these included the creation of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), which restored integrity to, and confidence in, Jamaican elections.

There was, as well, the economic reform of the past dozen years, which has brought macroeconomic stability but couldn’t have been achieved without strong national consensus around tight fiscal strictures, debt restructure and multi-sectoral oversight of the programme by the Economic Programme Oversight Committee (EPOC), which has been something of a global model for similar projects.

Even Jamaica’s move to independence after Jamaica voted to leave the West Indies Federation was treated as an effort of national collaboration, Dr Phillips argued.

“When the terms of the Jamaican Constitution were settled by a committee of the House, the then premier, N.W. Manley, invited the Leader of the Opposition, Sir Alexander Bustamante, to travel with him to London where the final agreements regarding the structure and content of the Independence constitution were settled jointly,” he said. “Those were our origins.”

LARGER POINT

The larger point, as Dr Phillips framed it, is that “nationhood is not the result of the ‘sharing of geographic space’, for “history is replete with examples of people sharing the same territory, engaging in mutually destructive conflict with each other”.

He might have added among his examples Jamaica itself, which came close to civil war in the late 1970s and into the 1980s during the ideological conflicts between the JLP and the PNP.

Happily, while the island’s political institutions were badly stressed, they didn’t break, thanks in no small measure to entities like the ECJ and its forerunner, the Electoral Advisory Committee, which took the management of elections from the exclusive control of the government and governing party.

Said Dr Phillips: “Building the Jamaican nation requires the application of good governance, principles of accountability, transparency, integrity, etc. But it must also be premised on principles of participation – giving citizens an opportunity to be part of the decision-making process.”

Which brings us back to our point, the issues raised by Drs Chang and Campbell (and others before them) and their relevance to the principles espoused by Peter Phillips.

Of course, providing research support to MPs is important. Indeed, it was recommended two decades ago by a salary review committee for Parliamentarians, led by the late Oliver Clarke, then the chairman of this newspaper.

But more such resources to MPs, as their big salary hike two years ago has shown, won’t by itself result in the sort of engagements and attitudes that change political behaviour or approaches to their legislative work. It is indeed telling that the life of the current Parliament is nearing its end with completing its review of the role and code of conduct for MPs.

Perhaps that ought not to be surprising if the starting point were not a deep philosophical reflection by the parties themselves on their mission in national development. Which must be more than a shallow transactional relationship with voters.

These outcomes would then translate to the relationship between the political executive and backbench MPs, including the space they are allowed in Parliament. That, of course, will also mean a major overhaul of the Standing Orders by which Parliament regulates itself.

The imminent general election provides a good platform on which to commence this debate.