Election and EU

Martin Henry, Contributor

We are bracing for an early election. The European Union (EU) is bracing for imminent collapse; or, at the very least, a rocky transition into something else.

The state of the EU, and more specifically of its Eurozone, and, by extension, the state of the global economy, is not a minor matter for Jamaica. But this is hardly likely to figure in any prominent way among the issues of the impending Andrew election bearing down upon us. The predominant 'issue', at least where elections are truly decided, may well be, "Wi like Andrew" versus "Wi doan want Andrew, Portia love the poor more."

I have been pointing out all through the transition period (now a major marker in Jamaican political history in its own right), that the ability of any new leader to govern, will be determined not merely by personal capacity and the quality of the team he can assemble, but more so by the huge forces of our political history and the condition of the society these forces have already created and the even greater external forces which the leader does not and cannot control. The best leader is the leader who best understands these things and can best communicate them to an impatient people filled with escalating expectations.
Before we journey into the scary Eurozone, some domestic election matters: The Observer has joined the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) in frightening people that the Electoral Office of Jamaica is not ready for elections. Last Thursday, the Observer's front-page screamer announced, 'EOJ not ready for polls'. But the contents of the story substantially contradicted the negative screamer. Part of the story reported the director of elections saying, "It is the prime minister's prerogative to call an election, it is my responsibility to conduct the election." Correct.

don't sacrifice elections

The leader of the Opposition had earlier written to the chairman of the Electoral Commission, Professor Errol Miller, "to make it very clear that the Opposition will not countenance an election being held at a standard below that of the 2007 general election ... . The important advances we have made in conducting free and fair elections since the introduction of the Electoral Advisory Committee (and the successor ECJ) must not be sacrificed on the altar of partisan political expediency.

"The Opposition is, therefore, urging the selected members and the director of elections to make a public statement indicating the earliest date at which the ECJ can be prepared to hold a general election, at least at the standard of the 2007 general election, but preferably to include additional areas in identifiable volatile constituencies which are likely to be at the centre of intense political competition."

While it is not hard to imagine some advantages to the PNP, especially around the last point about "volatile constituencies" (the PNP holds garrisons 5:1 to the JLP), what the disadvantage to the Opposition party would be if elections were conducted by the EOJ now is quite difficult to spot.

I have not, up to the time of writing, seen any response from the ECJ to the Opposition.

In any case, the Electoral Office must always be 'ready' to conduct 'free and fair' elections, unless as a public agency it is to usurp the constitutional authority of the prime minister to call an election in his sole discretion. According to the director, the law provides for postponement if the election machinery is not 'ready'. Be that as it may, we could only be talking about a few weeks rather than any longer-term postponement. The legal provision of the mandatory interval between nomination day and election day provides a preparation safeguard.

Every prime minister and his Government and party have sought political advantage in setting the date for election. Challengers should stop whining and gird up for the fight. If unlawful advantage is taken in any action, expose it, and ask the ECJ and voters to punish it.

danville detractors

Many people have taken issue with Danville Walker, a former director of elections, being asked to meet with the selected members of the ECJ on the eve of announcing candidacy for the next general election. As it turned out, Mr Walker, a world-class expert on electoral systems and conducting elections, had been called in to advise on the feasibility of holding the general and local government elections at the same time. The commissioners plausibly pleaded ignorance of Walker's intention to run.

I do not share the objections, not even if the consultative meeting had been held after announcement of candidacy or even if Mr Walker were sitting in Parliament. The only problem might have been with the 'secrecy' of the meeting.

I do not believe that party political engagement or expressed political loyalty should remove persons from participating as citizens in the regular social and economic affairs of the society. We must stop demonising politics, politicians, and political engagement, though there are plenty of demonic politicians. Even politicians themselves speak of politics in dirty terms such as 'playing politics' with this or that policy matter. And listen to Prime Minister Holness singing the praises of the late former PNP mayor of Port Antonio, Hezekiah Molloy: "He was the consummate community man who never put politics ahead of his love of Spring Hill and the Buff Bay Valley."

A country has to have political leadership, and politics is an honourable calling which should not be used to unreasonably cut off practitioners from the regular rights and privileges of all citizens or to deny society their expertise outside the political sphere. Conflicts of interest can be identified and managed.

In this case, it is very difficult to see what benefit could possibly accrue to Danville Walker personally or to his party, or what loss would be sustained by his opponents by him giving one or other of only two possible answer to the question of both elections being held on one day: Yes or no, with reasons stated.

Whoever governs the country after the next general election will have to deal with the impact of the economic tempests in the Eurozone, in the wider EU, and in the world economy. We have already lost preferential access to the EU banana and sugar markets. Thank God, the efficient Chinese have picked up sugar. But despite the palliative interventions of the EU Banana Support Programme, thousands of banana farmers and estate workers are yet to be absorbed into consistent alternative economic activity. Chinese efficiency is likely to make redundant the jobs of many 19th-century, illiterate sugar workers.

The financial crisis in the 17-member Eurozone - that segment of the EU using the euro as common currency - cast a long shadow over the G20 meeting last week in Cannes, France - a shadow which extends to Kingston and to every capital in a globalised world.

The G20 meeting had as its brave theme, 'Nouveau Monde, Nouvelles Idees': 'New World, New Ideas'. The 'new idea' for rescuing Greece from looming economic collapse, which could push the Eurozone, the EU and the world into worse than another recession, came upon the massive roadblock of a referendum which Greek Premier George Papandreou on Monday announced unilaterally to the shock and dismay of his Eurozone partners and the rest of the world including the still shaky United States. Papandreou, under intense pressure, has since backpedalled but now faces a vote of confidence in his own Parliament.

gordon vs boyne

The rescue plan is very much like a European IMF intervention with tough 'conditionalities'. Some of our intellectuals - and politicians - are foolishly pushing us into a fight with the IMF, disregardful of the storms raging beyond the border. I very much like the measured and technically accessible response of economist Peter-John Gordon, 'Debating the IMF bandwagon', to the anti-IMF bluff and bluster of Ian Boyne in his October 16 piece, 'IMF bandwagon and JEEP'.

These are not small academic and journalistic matters. The election campaign should adopt the Gordon stance and calmly discuss the IMF programme and its allegedly better alternatives, especially in light of the chaos in the Eurozone and a looming new global economic crisis.

Democracy has its Achilles heel, to use a thoroughly Greek metaphor. As an Associated Press analysis of the Greek crisis which was carried by The Gleaner last Thursday noted, "Voters in Greece, where the economy has been strangled by austerity measures, joblessness and years of recession, are in an angry mood." In a referendum, they would likely, for personal 'selfish' reasons, reject the latest rescue package with its new round of austerity, dragging Greece out of the Eurozone and plunging the currency, the economies of the zone and of the world into crisis.

The surprise announcement of the referendum sent global stock markets into panic decline. Paradoxically, in defiance of this general trend, perhaps driven by blissful ignorance or hubristic confidence (to spin another Greek-derived metaphor), the petty Jamaican stock market rose last week.

Speaking of the Greece/Eurozone debacle, one analyst declares, "This is now a game being played with the highest of stake." Another: "The Eurozone is imploding." A third: "A successful outcome to the crisis - a quick resolution to Greece and an immediate reduction of the tension on Italy and Spain - is highly unlikely. UK think tank, the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, has come up with a number of alternative scenarios: muddling through, default contagion and a Greek exit from the Euro. None of them will be remotely pleasant." And the recall of the referendum has not changed that fact.

Meanwhile, we think our election with two middle-of-the-road political parties jostling to lead a country with precious few policy alternatives is the biggest game in town.

Martin Henry is a communication specialist. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com and medhen@gmail.com.