Today, March 18, is 41 years since the local government elections of 1969. That local government election was significant for three reasons. The first was the by-election in Southeast St Ann that was called the day before and could have resulted in a problem over voters’ ink. How could people vote one day and turn up to vote in the local government elections the next day with clean fingers when the voters’ ink stains fingers for sometimes as long as a week?

Immediately following the election of Michael Manley as People’s National Party president in 1969, the PNP’s Ivan Lloyd resigned from the party. The Jamaica Labour Party chose Lloyd’s son Garland to be its candidate in the by-election and his father helped him. Obviously the JLP hoped to win the by-election and hoped that it would also influence the local government election, hence the two polls a day apart.

The then JLP government led by Hugh Shearer as prime minister avoided the voters’ ink problem in the day-apart elections by withdrawing all of their local government candidates in southeast St Ann, giving six unopposed seats to the PNP. What would have happened had there been independent candidates who refused to withdraw would have been anyone’s guess. After 41 years, there is still no law to prevent day-apart elections.

The second significant thing was that the JLP won eight of the then 13 councils and a vast majority of local government divisions islandwide, yet the PNP received most votes in Manchester, St Mary and Hanover but lost those councils. In the case of Hanover, because members of parliament were then ex-officio parish councilors, the JLP controlled the council by a majority of one, although the PNP won a majority of council seats.

The JLP had a vote majority of 891 in the 1969 local government election. But the people of Southeast St Ann did not vote because the six local government seats there were returned unopposed to the PNP. On March 17, 1969 the PNP’s Seymour Mullings won the by-election when he polled 3144 more votes than the JLP’s Garland Lloyd. Subtracting the 891 JLP majority in the local government election from the PNP’s 3144 majority in the by-election the previous day, one gets a PNP majority of 2253.

Added to that, had it been a parliamentary election of the 53 constituencies then available, the PNP would have won 27 and the JLP 26. Yet in terms of parishes and local government divisions the JLP won the election impressively. So how democratic was the 1969 local government election? It was reminiscent of the 1949 general election in which the JLP won, but the PNP got 3510 more than the JLP. These two of three significant points are faults in our election system. It is also one of the reasons why many have advocated far-reaching changes in the system.

The third point of significance was the Gleaner competition as to who could spot the winners. The person who won the first prize of money was Ken Chin-Onn who was right in all seats except one where an independent won instead of the JLP candidate. Chin-Onn was 99 per cent correct in the minute details of the JLP’s victory in that election.

But Ken Chin-Onn was not a JLP supporter as most people might believe. He was the research officer of the PNP and in 1972 he became the PNP general secretary. I remind everyone about this in light of what I said on TVJ’s All Angles last week and what I wrote in my last column. I said and wrote that if Prime Minister Bruce Golding calls an election now, the JLP would win because the PNP is not

election-ready. When I stated that the JLP would win the 2007 parliamentary election many people saw it as an indication of my political preference and I hear it again in light of last week.

But that is not so at all. I am not for “he, she or the old lady”. Those that accuse me of bias because I asked a question about disparity in extraditing people should look into themselves to see if the bias is mine or theirs. I am a Norman Manleyist and a socialist, but that does not mean that I like the way in which the PNP does things today. I maintain that the greatest difference between the PNP and the JLP today is in the spelling.

I was hoping that anyone who responded to my column, “Are we behaving like Caiaphas”, in the Jamaica Observer online would have at least read John 11:50 first. At least Caiaphas was making a prophecy and not thinking exclusively for himself. But in the case of Christopher “Dudus” Coke, how many who want him extradited are thinking only of themselves?

Yes, I asked questions to allow readers to look into themselves in my attempt to combine a newspaper column with a mini-spiritual retreat. I make no apologies for that. If some did look into themselves then I would have achieved my objective, but such people would not necessarily respond. It is one way to bring about a change of mindset. And Lent is the best time to do such a reflection to achieve that.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com