EDITORIAL - Let's be frank about candidate selection

Political Ombudsman Herro Blair has declared, in an interview with this newspaper, that some political candidates selected for the imminent general election are not fit for office. Despite his explanation that he was speaking as an individual, the bishop should know that it is extremely difficult to separate the role of ombudsman from that of private citizen.

So this statement carries much weight and should be taken seriously by the political parties and the electorate as the country heads to the polls in a matter of weeks. In the broad scheme of electioneering, political parties mobilise support by undertaking activities such as raising funds, conducting opinion polls, canvassing support and recruiting candidates in the hope of appealing to voters and winning elections. It is political parties that produce leaders, candidates and manifestos on which voters must give a verdict.

It seems that this declaration by Bishop Blair merits a national examination of what drives the recruitment and ultimate selection of candidates for parliamentary elections. Why? Because it is those who emerge successful from among these candidates who will ultimately influence the political processes that will determine the pace of our development and the prosperity and health of the nation. In other words, the outcome of an election has consequences for the parties, the Parliament and the Government.

The Opposition People's National Party has established an Integrity Commission to vet its candidates and the ruling Jamaica Labour Party is presumed to have some kind of candidate qualification criteria. But are these systems working properly?

hearsay basis of concern?

As we have seen in recent weeks, candidate selection has been thrust in the spotlight in several constituencies, with supporters expressing public dissatisfaction with the process. There have been demonstrations for and against some candidates. In some cases, candidates have been cast aside to make way for new entrants who are making first-time bids to start parliamentary careers. There is usually no explanation as to why these decisions were made but it is believed that the parties select candidates whom they believe to be electable.

In his interview, Bishop Blair cautioned the electorate not to be guided by "hearsay" in evaluating the candidates' worthiness. So how did Bishop Blair conclude that some candidates are not fit for office? We take it that Mr Blair is not relying on "hearsay" and that his assessment is backed by solid evidence of wrongdoing that renders some candidates ineligible for office.

On this basis, our democracy cannot be fully realised unless we confront such challenges and bring out the evidence in the open. The ombudsman has said that he has several options to repair alleged breaches, including reporting persons to the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. If he has evidence of wrongdoing on the part of any candidate, he needs to take the appropriate action.

We speak often about democracy in this country, yet democracy's great promise is often not translated into a meaningful reality for many of our citizens who see their rights being infringed daily. We submit that to build a stronger and more sustainable democracy, all institutions should be alive to their responsibilities in ensuring that the foundation of governance is protected.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.