Dear Editor,

The guessing game surrounding the current election date has understandably led to calls for a fixed election date. However, the only practical formula would have to contain so many exceptions to a fixed date that they would render the change almost meaningless. Jamaicans should remember, for instance, the situation in 1962 when the PNP under Norman Manley still had years to run on its five-year mandate, starting in 1959. It supported Federation; the JLP opposed it. There was a referendum which the JLP won. The weight of public opinion was — and is — that Norman Manley acted appropriately in calling an election in 1962 to determine which party should lead Jamaica into independence. How would the voice of the people have been heard had Manley been tied to a fixed election date — 1964?

Canada and at least one of its provinces, Ontario, is experimenting with attaching a fixed election date on to the parliamentary system. At the national level, the fixed election date was violated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper before the ink was dry on the legislation. In Ontario, the provincial fixed-election law is going to be seriously tested as we now have a minority government which could be defeated on the floor of the provincial Parliament any day.

As with so many proposed changes, Jamaica should look before it leaps. A prime minister plays a major role in conducting the nation’s business. The people do not directly elect a prime minister; the party does, or more correctly the party’s MPs. It is entirely appropriate that where there is a change in the leadership, as has occurred here, the voters should have the right to express their views in short order. A fixed election date does not allow for that kind of flexibility.

Errol WA Townshend

Ontario, Canada

ewat@rogers.com