Thursday, September 13, 2007
Land We Love
I went to Jamaica for my sister-in-law's funeral on the third of September – Election Day, as it happened. I probably made my booking before the date was announced – I can't remember at this point, for it came as a surprise when someone pointed out to me that we went to the polls on 3 September. (Affected by the same blissful unawareness, I made a booking to return to Canada on the 9th of September.) President Carter didn't come to watch the elections this time, nor the Commonwealth Secretariat. They were confident the polls would proceed peacefully and fairly, which, by and large they did. A few people died, but given the mayhem that might have obtained, things proceeded pretty well – except for the fact that only 60% of the electorate turned out to vote! Perhaps we should make it a criminal offense not to exercise one's franchise, as the Australians do. The low turnout is bad enough, but far worse was the silliness put forward by some as an excuse for their failure to vote. There were people who could not bring themselves to go to the polls because they were "born and bred in X party", and if they couldn't vote for that party, they weren't going to vote at all! It makes nonsense of the business of choosing public officials. Voting is a complex business, and in a country with many cultural groups and many languages, it's a challenge to ensure that everyone understands the issues. In a tiny country where people speak the same language, it is easier for them to have a grasp of things. Most candidates are well-known and priorities stare the voter in the face. Whatever the size of the state, there are many bases according to which one can make a choice. Does the candidate have a solid record of work in the constituency, whether as sitting member or caretaker? How good is their attendance record in Parliament? Their participation in debate? If there's a really good candidate running in my neck of the woods, regardless of party, that's a good reason to support the person. Unless there is an overriding big issue – a party soft on the environment, or inclined to wantonly commit the country's troops abroad, or proposing a significant increase in consumption or income tax. These bigger issues may override voting for the better candidate in my constituency, especially if the election looks to be a close one. But where one puts one's vote must be a reasoned business, done after due consideration of what is best for community, country and planet. If one's vote is a way of maintaining membership in a particular political group, then we are back in the business of reichs, and that is a dangerous business indeed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Pam: The deeper problem was that in this election the difference between the two parties was vanishingly small. The JLP promised a slightly different programme from the PNP, though their main claim seemed to be 'a fi wi tu'n now'. The PNP promised that Portia would speak for the poor.
The fact that the country split nearly evenly suggests that Jamaicans are aware that neither party really offers an alternative worth any real commitment on the part of the ordinary person. There were giants on the earth once. Now we have Bruce and Portia and Peter and, save the mark, Pearnel.
Hi fsjl:
I'm not sure platforms matter in elections anymore, since nobody does what they say they are going to do, anyway! So I'm studying the country as the election proceeds, and trying to read that. We aren't murdering each other by the hundreds. Whatever was happening in the last few years, we were able to arrive at that point. Give thanks. The voting process worked, and there was no tampering – complaints of intimidation and late starts and missing voters' names, but no dead people voting, no ballot stuffing. And young people, middle class and working class, were involved in enabling the voting process. There was some really lousy reporting on some media, which I found deeply disappointing. There were a couple new and younger faces among the candidates, including an ex-beauty queen – who won her seat. That's important. (Hurricanes Ivan and Dean having reconfigured the Palisadoes peninsula are threatening to return it to its original status as a tombolo and cut off the new airport. That's kinda important too...) The significance of the even split must be interpreted in the light of the non-voting 40%, don't you think? That's close to half the enfranchised who didn't vote. I hate to think that they've abandoned hope, or they just couldn't bother, or they're so nailed into support of one or other party that they wouldn't cast a critical vote in the other direction. I wonder what age cohorts the non-voters fell into and continue preoccupied by such de like considerations. Thanks for visiting.
I have the feeling that a large segment of the Jamaican people has for a very long time been alienated from the political system.
Back when I was an idealistic young man bothering you with my immature verse on the Mona Campus, ideology mattered. It mattered because both Michael Manley and Edward Seaga announced that they had visions for Jamaica (Seaga in response to Manley). That tended to cover up the uncomfortable fact that both parties really built their support on patronage, and a large part of the vote was the result of people paying for the opportunity to get housing, jobs and so on.
Now that the ability of government to distribute 'scarce benefits' is substantially diminished, and the people who provide such benefits are the dons, it's not surprising that a large segment of the population sees no need to vote since they don't get anything from it.
The fact that the difference between the two parties was only 3,000 votes, I think, is testimony to the fact that neither of them is really offering a vision of a new Jamaica or a better Jamaican future. For too many Jamaicans, the future comes in a large cardboard barrel, and in the hope that they will be able to join father/mother/uncle/aunt/sister/brother in Toronto/New York/Atlanta/London/Miami.
Fragano:
We are ad idem on much of this, but I keep returning to the context. If it changes, those alterations signify. I keep nosing around that non-voting 40 percent. Perhaps it would be good if they ARE alienated, if they are choosing to avoid the polls because the politicians are full of sound and fury that is meaningless. But what if they are too ill? Too tired? Too depressed? Too frightened? (A friend of mine with whom I just skyped at some length thinks that this last may have been a part of why many avoided the polls.) I traveled back to Canada via the US and on my return there (to the US, that is) the immigration officer who processed my entry asked whether I was related to the two sets of people who had gone before. I told him no and asked why he'd asked. Turns out they'd all gone to Jamaica for funerals... Could it be that our recent history has us dropping dead like flies?
Given that Jamaicans tend to be long-lived.......
I suspect that much of the alienation from the system is simply the result of the reduction in the patronage power of both parties. Party loyalty was based on very concrete jobs and dollars. Now, I feel, there is a section of the population that, absent financial incentives, merely sees government and politics as alien and irrelevant. Mark them not apathetic so much as completely alienated.
That raises the question -- in my mind anyway - - of what all the sound and fury of the 40s, 50s, 60s, and 70s really meant.
Well, our recent history has indeed killed a fair number of us, never mind our tendency to be long-lived. We should see if we can find some data (hard, soft or otherwise) on this alienation of the electorate business, as well as on how many of us actually have been accustomed to rely on the patronage power of the two parties. As for the 40s, 50s, 60s and indeed, 70s, there is evidence. The struggle for independence was meaningful for a great many people, and we have histories that witness to that, as well as some art and literature and theatre that say so. The seventies begin with that extraordinary moment of 1972, a time when the electorate, nervous about the Red Hordes of West Kingston, welcomed Michael Manley and his vision for the country. Many Jamaicans had expectations based on their understanding of that vision, and, many of them, a willingness to work hard to make it a reality. After that? Well, we are only just unraveling that story, or unraveling in the light of that story – or maybe all we're doing is unraveling, along with everybody else?
I'm engaged (or I would be if I could steal six months worth of sabbatical) in a study of the evolution of the Jamaican state (two chapters out of six written in the space of four years! ugh). My research strongly suggests a lack of commitment to the Jamaican state as an entity (which is a different matter from a Jamaican identity).
Research done by Mark Figueroa indicates that, in fact, a large section of the urban lower classes didn't vote.
My own feeling -- and this is a subjective feeling, not my considered conclusion as a political scientist -- is that the creative ferment of the 40s, 50s, and 60s drew on the upheavals of the 1930s (and their aftershocks) for their energy. 1938 made it abundantly clear that one could be Jamaican (or West Indian) and creative. 1968 provided a small booster shot. And then....
Perhaps Jamaica is unravelling -- certainly, the last time I was there the growing complacency of the middle class shocked me about as much as the growing gap between the middle class and the poor -- and a popular culture in which cunnilingus and homophobia now seem to be the central elements would seem to indicate that, but I hope that it isn't. On the other hand, Jamaica is one of those places that eats its children, whole and with relish.
BTW, on another topic: when I next run into Trevor Turner should I greet him for you?
Fragano:
Of course, please do say hi to Trevor for me! What's he up to? Does Mark's research concern this last election? Or is this some kind of trend that he has identified over the last few elections? (BTW, Portia is in the papers up here today quarelling about faulty election machinery. Now who set it up, I ask you? Nobody don't tell her that governments lose elections; opposition parties rarely win them?) Yes, you are right about 1938 as the source of the creative energies of subsequent decades. I'm a writer, not a social scientist, and so am free to have great confidence in convictions of the gut, where, according to a friend of mine, the Holy Spirit lives. I have heard the theory advanced that Jamaica will be in a continuing state of unravelment, without coming utterly apart, and this till Jesus come. As for the middle class – I don't think it's a useful category for analysis of the Jamaican demographic any longer. I, for one, wouldn't care to try to characterize it...
Oops, didn't see this till today.
On Trevor, I will. He's Dean of the School of Education at Clark Atlanta.
Mark's research -- which indicated that both parties had to train people how to vote -- was done on the 1997 and 2002 elections, as far as I can recall.
'Middle class' can be an amorphous term (so, for that matter is 'petite bourgeoisie'), but somebody is building second stories to houses in uptown Kingston, and ordering pizza delivered. And there are a lot of people cowering behind grills and keeping security guards employed.
Would love to hear more about what Trevor is up to. I'm thinking of setting up a tour of the Eastern seabord next year (a bad time though, in April and early May, which is close to exams), and I'm looking for places to read and maybe visit a couple of classes...
The thing is, someone is building second stories to the houses downtown as well, and the pizza deliveries are probably made there too... As for cowering behind grills and employing security guards, there's many a gated community where security are being employed by householders who themselves have had criminal careers! It's no doubt the upward mobility Mr Seaga referred to in his article post-election in the Jamaican papers. My country!
I am new to your blog.Nonetheless,I found the post " Land we Love" and the resulting comments and exchanges extremely instructive and informative.With respect to the perspective or notion that Jamaica is unravelling,one concurs totally.Looking forward to visiting your site for future posts, especially regarding Jamaica.RESPECT!
Post a Comment