Every parliamentary election in Jamaica, dating back to 1944, has been described as crucial.

However, it can perhaps be argued that there is more riding on the December 29, 2011 version than most.

The very fact that Prime Minister Andrew Holness has opted for the relative inconvenience of the Yuletide season for this date with destiny speaks to the urgency of the matter.

For as he has repeatedly said, stakeholders with an economic interest, local and international, are impatiently waiting to see whether there will be “continuity” with him at the helm of a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Government or a change to the People’s National Party (PNP) with Mrs Portia Simpson Miller in charge.

Central to the economic debate is the floundering borrowing arrangement with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and how it is to be repaired, or, as the Opposition suggests, renegotiated.

Jamaican voters must determine which party is best able to manage the ballooning debt crisis; best able to lead in the inevitable “rationalisation” or trimming of the public sector as part of the drive to reduce expenditure and waste; as well as the overhaul of pension arrangements.

And crucially, which party will be intrepid enough to so chart a course through the rough waters ahead, that sustainable economic growth can be achieved to fuel employment and a meaningful reduction in poverty levels.

For ultimately there must be reward for the belt-tightening and extreme sacrifices that people will be asked to make. History has repeatedly shown that macro-economic stability is of little value if the mass of the people have nothing to show for it.

Voters must be acutely aware that whichever party is in charge after December 29 the gains made in fighting crime and dismantling gangs since the displacement in West Kingston a year-and-a-half ago must not be lost. Rather, even in these austere times there must be a plan to adequately support the security forces in fighting criminals as well as to fill the social/welfare space being left in our most afflicted communities as the ‘dons’ and their gangs are pushed aside.

Relevant to all issues is the increasingly topical matter of corruption in and around government. It seems reasonable to argue that the actions — even if unduly delayed — taken by the prime minister in seeking to openly deal with real or perceived wrongdoing in the conduct of the Jamaica Development Infrastructure Programme (JDIP) reflects a maturing of the political and democratic process.

It also shows considerable courage on the part of the youthful Mr Holness. To shoulder aside and remove from the Cabinet Mr Mike Henry, the powerful member of the ‘old guard’ and chairman of the JLP, must have appeared fraught with risk. Coming, as it does, in the aftermath of his predecessor Mr Bruce Golding’s missteps in the handling of the Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke extradition and related matters, Mr Holness’s actions so far have been refreshing.

As the situation now stands, the prime minister may well have gained in the eyes of voters.

The Opposition — even with its own skeletons — can also claim high ground, having pushed relentlessly to expose any perceived absence of transparency and the presence of corrupt practices in the management of the road programme.

Jamaicans must have high on their list of considerations this issue of corruption as they go to the polls.

When all is said and done, Jamaicans should look to the vision for the 2030 National Development Plan as they vote in late December. They should ask themselves which of these two political parties is best able to guide Jamaica as it seeks to become the “place of choice to live, work, raise families and do business”.