Requiem for a manifesto

The campaign preceding the last general election was a long one, yet up until a few weeks before the date, neither party had published a manifesto. Political slaves vote for their political masters no matter what, but thinking people want to see what each party stands for before marking their 'X'.

Clearly, neither party believes that the voters think; or maybe neither party wants us to think. They prefer to govern mindless political zombies, who will jump up and down and vote for whoever the party puts up as a candidate.

It does not look like this election will be contested on the basis of issues either. Voters will not be asked to support the person or party with the best plan or agenda for action: plans for growing the economy, or for making sure our schools actually teach our children to read, or for curbing corruption, or for conserving our natural environment.

The JLP is asking people to vote in the next general election based on whether they want more of the old corrupt Portia Simpson Miller government that they had previously rejected, and which has come up with nothing new since; or whether they want the young Andrew Holness with new ideas to continue to pilot the ship of state.

The PNP was expecting to win the election because the electorate would vote out the Bruce Golding administration. Now that Golding is not at the helm, the party seems at a loss for an election strategy. The PNP's Progressive Agenda has turned out to be ideas for discussion rather than an agenda for action.

Manifesto? Why bother?

Manifestos, I suppose, are inconvenient, at best. If you win the election, people have a way of reading them carefully, and pointing out the number of broken and unfulfilled promises. No, there will be no manifestos for this general election - from either party. Someone will get a mandate to govern, but without a pre-planned programme against which they can be held to account.

There is not much to choose between them: both parties employ garrison politics, even while claiming to want to change their ways. Neither party wants open and public disclosure of party campaign financing. Both parties, when in power, have been involved in questionable land deals, and have given lucrative contracts to their supporters.

Neither party has shown itself really to care about the natural environment. Both parties contain prominent members under a cloud, being investigated by foreign governments for corruption, while still being allowed to represent their parties in Parliament.

Once again, the Jamaican electorate is being asked to choose between the lesser of two evils. Some with sensitive consciences will choose not to vote at all; some will hold their noses as they cast their vote; and some - fewer and fewer, as time goes by - will mindlessly support their tribe.

Democracy must be something loftier than this!

EXPEDIENCE OVER PRINCIPLE

I want to support the sentiments in The Gleaner editorial yesterday. The JLP stood on principle when it took Sharon Hay-Webster to court over her controversial dual citizenship, to have her thrown out of Parliament; and then the next thing you hear is that the JLP welcomes Mrs Hay-Webster on its side of the House of Parliament. The JLP can't have it both ways: either it was wrong when it wanted her thrown out of Parliament, or the party is wrong to welcome her on to its side.

Persons who act on principle do whatever is right, come what may. People without principles do whatever suits them, whatever they perceive to be in their best interests, i.e., whatever is expedient.

It seems to me that in this Sharon Hay-Webster matter, expedience has triumphed over principle.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a Roman Catholic deacon. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.