Editorial | Is there an ombudsman?

It may be that the politicians, the political parties, and their supporters who participated in the February 2024 municipal elections were so well behaved that Jamaica’s political ombudsman felt it had nothing to report to citizens.

If that were indeed the case, The Gleaner is glad of their conduct and hopes that it holds in future polls. That notwithstanding, we believe that the office of the ombudsman, which, by law, are the members of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ), acting “indivisibly”, has an obligation to report to Jamaicans on its analysis, observation, and experiences in those elections and how these might be leveraged in future events.

Although it is almost a year since the municipal elections, it is still not too late for the ombudsman/ECJ to share that analysis with the public.

The ombudsman/ECJ, through its chairman, Earl Jarrett, must do something else. It must assure Jamaicans that its approach to the municipal vote will not be replicated in the general election which, constitutionally, must be held before the end of this year. Voters want to be certain that breaches of the Political Code of Conduct will be noticed and called out and that the ombudsman will bring all the full legal and moral force of the office to bear on offenders.

Importantly, and a precursor to this, Mr Jarrett and his fellow commissioners of the ECJ must be certain of their willingness and capacity to, with integrity, assume the role of the political ombudsman, which was wrongly thrust upon them a year ago. They ought to have rejected it. They did not.

There is no question that for more than 40 years, the ECJ has done an invaluable job in the management of the technical elements of Jamaica’s elections, which, even if largely credible (outcomes generally reflected the will of the people), were seriously flawed.

It was not unusual in some constituencies for more ballots to be cast than there were registered voters, for ballot boxes to be stolen, and/or voters intimidated.

REMOVING DIRECT CONTROL

The reform was centred on removing the management of elections from direct control of the Government/ruling party, thus limiting their capacity to manipulate the system. While the island’s two major political parties were assigned two members each on the reformed commission, they were counterbalanced by four independent members, selected by the governor general, one of whom must be the chairman, with a tie-breaking vote.

Another element of Jamaica’s election reform was the agreement by the political parties to a Code of Conduct in which they, and their candidates, eschewed intimidation and violence or action statements that might incite violence or other forms of misbehaviour by their supporters.

The Political Code of Conduct was underpinned by the legislatively created political ombudsman, who policed adherence to any code of conduct in place at the time or any behaviour that was likely to breach the peace or raise tensions between party supporters.

The political ombudsman may not have had strong powers to sanction politicians who breached the code or engaged in unbecoming behaviour. This newspaper, however, believes that the moral weight of being called out for misbehaviour helped to constrain the worst impulses of politicians on the hustings.

WRONG TO SUBSUME

Which is why the Government, having left the political ombudsman job vacant for several months, was wrong to subsume the office into the ECJ.

We did not then, or now, feel it appropriate or prudent that as the electoral monitors Citizens for Free and Fair Elections (CAFFE) put it, “ethical questions which are normally dealt with by the political ombudsman” should be ceded to the ECJ – which had distinguished itself with the technical aspects of elections.

“Saddling the ECJ with this responsibility overlooks the reality that its membership includes politicians,” CAFFE noted a year ago.

Given the ECJ’s attitude thus far, we can only assume that it is a reluctant political ombudsman. However, having accepted the job, it has an obligation to perform. And relatively little time to put its ombudsman’s house in order.

It is imperative, for instance, that the Political Code of Conduct be updated to make it, among other things, pellucid that a free and independent press occupies a singular space in a free and democratic society and that journalists ought not to be subject to intimidation or threats of violence.

We remind of this against the backdrop of the viral social media assault in recent months of six Gleaner newspaper journalists, who, for their fair and honest reporting, were accused of campaigning against the incumbent administration, with the intention of seeing its collapse.

That was tantamount to placing bullseyes on the backs of The Gleaner Six.

Happily, that campaign has subsided, but as the political environment becomes increasingly febrile, it might arise again. And not only against The Gleaner’s journalists.

It is urgent that the political ombudsman, Mr Jarrett et al, begin consultations with stakeholders on the way forward.