Election trends and voting patterns in garrison constituencies

Alfred Sangster, Contributor

The recently concluded 2011 election confounded many of the polls and predictions of Bill Johnson, The Gleaner, Gordon Robinson, Mark Wignall and Karl Samuda, and the hopes of many Labourites. Only the Don Anderson polls came close, at least in terms of a prediction of the overall result.

One highlight of the election has been the level of friendliness shown by representatives of opposing parties, orange and green shirts hugging each other on nomination day. This was a wonderful tribute to the collective work over the years of a number of organisations seeking to preserve our democracy and to ensure:

Free and fair elections and elections free from fear:

The Electoral Advisory Committee (EAC): chaired by Professor Gladstone Mills from October 1979 to May 1993; chaired by Peter-John Thwaites from August 1993 to January 1994 and then chaired by William Chin-See from May 1994-1996.

Citizens Action for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE) launched on September 3, 1997 fifteen weeks before the 1997 elections. The new organisation faced initial suspicion from all three political parties - the JLP, NDM, and the PNP.

The Electoral Office of Jamaica, headed for many years by Danville Walker, which implemented, over time, a number of important security systems for the electoral process. Credit must be given to his successor, Director of Elections Orette Fisher, who has performed very well.

The Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), appointed in 2006 and chaired by Professor Errol Miller, was given executive authority and replaced the EAC, which had limited authority. One major difference between the two was that the director of elections now reports formally to the ECJ.

There were not too many cases of deliberate selling of votes and only a few cases of partisan victory attacks on opposition supporters. But it has been more than a friendly hugging up at election time. It represents an important growth and maturing of the voting population in assessing: promises, platforms, and performances of candidates and political parties. It is clear that no third party has any future in this country.

Democracy has prevailed, and the will of the people has been fulfilled. The Sunday Gleaner, in its editorial of January 1, has, however, added a cautionary comment to the victorious PNP in three respects.

First, the voter turnout of 52.65 per cent represents the second lowest since universal adult suffrage some seven decades ago and is some nine percentage points lower than the turnout in 2007.

Second, only 28 per cent of the registered electors cast their votes for the PNP.

Third, a significant number of middle-class and young voters stayed away from the polls on the basis of disenchantment with the political process. These voters cannot complain later about the government that has been elected.

A number of important points can be made in a review of the election results.

1. There was a clear voter swing to the PNP and decline in support for the JLP. The change in leadership of the JLP was too late, and the party had to face negative perceptions on the Manatt enquiry and the Dudus extradition issues. The million-dollar question is: Did Andrew Holness call the election at the wrong time?

2. The PNP, stung by its narrow defeat in 2007, pulled out all the stops and successfully targeted many marginal seats. In addition, the party organisation was highly effective in mobilising its voter support.

3. A significant number - 44 seats - were won by majorities in the 50-59 per cent range.

Twenty-nine such seats were won by the PNP and 15 for the JLP. In most cases, the percentage margins were higher for the PNP.

4. The number of 'safe' seats with a voting majority of more than 60 per cent - not including the garrison constituencies - has been increased to 14.

These were: 10 for the PNP, up from four in 2007, and four for the JLP, up from three in 2007. The additional one for the JLP was from one of the additional seats in St Catherine.

5. Voting in garrison constituencies was interesting. In this election, there were five garrison seats. The CAFFE 1998 Election Report identified garrison constituencies as those with a percentage of more than 75 per cent voting for the individual. Over the years, the number of garrison constituencies has remained fairly constant, with a peak in 1993. The numbers have been:

1989: PNP 2, JLP 1

1993: PNP 9, JLP 2

1997: PNP 3, JLP 1

2011: PNP 3, JLP 2

The Westmoreland seat nearly became a garrison for the PNP with a 72 per cent vote margin in 2011.

In doing a comparison between the voting patterns of 2007 and 2011, the following observations can be made (See Table 1).

A. For the three PNP garrisons, the percentage of the vote increased by an average of 3.2 per cent. For the two JLP garrisons, the percentage of the vote decreased by an average of 1.5 per cent.

B. For the three PNP garrisons, the actual number of votes cast for the candidate increased in all three.

For the two JLP garrisons, the actual number of votes cast for the candidate decreased in both.

C. We can conclude that the PNP garrisons have been strengthened, while the JLP garrisons have been weakened.

D. The implications for democracy and choice of party should be obvious. It is also clear that the presence of garrison constituencies still remains a blot on the Jamaican electoral process.

6. Both political parties have acknowledged that difficult days lie ahead. The issue of jobs ranks high with most voters, and our national debt is a crucial issue, whichever party is in power. We must, as a people, demand efficiency and integrity from the new Government. The Government is a government for all Jamaica, and so it must work for all, not for a partisan few. Our country will be watching.

Alfred Sangster is a former chairman of CAFFE. Email feedback to columns@gleaner jm.com and sangsteralfred@yahoo.com.