When I wrote in January of my disgust with political New Year’s messages, I also expressed a preference for New Year’s resolutions coming from them. I might also have gone on to ask for a new year revolution in their thinking and actions. Of course, this is unlikely, for our current representatives have no record of making fundamental changes, revising our Constitution, and radically adjusting the way public affairs are conducted.

Our legislators are paid to make laws and create conditions that enhance national development and the improvement of the people. Most of them have never initiated an idea toward these objectives. And, instead of revising, amending and introducing laws, they, for the most part, seem content to live with outdated ordinance, especially where it ensures and secures their own interests. Today their perceived usefulness has never been lower; yet they are complaining that the parliament building is not big enough to accommodate their numbers.

Consider the ever-increasing number of people sitting in the House of Representatives. A 50-odd-year-old regulation allows them to add extra constituencies as the voting population grows, and this is slavishly followed, regardless of the cost and mindless of whether or not it serves any useful purpose. A few years ago they increased the number of jobs in the House from 60 to 63. This costly escalation of quantity was not done to improve the quality of representation — and we have seen no such thing. It was merely to satisfy a rule made by the colonial predecessors.

The first constituencies in Independence were set in the Constitution through Section 66, which states: “Until otherwise provided by an Order made by the governor general under Section 67 of this Constitution Jamaica shall, for the purpose of electing the members of the House of Representatives, be divided into the 45 constituents prescribed by the Constituencies Boundaries Order 1959 made by the governor of the former colony of Jamaica and published in The Gazette of the 28th day of May 1959.”

Section 67 gives our representatives the right to increase this number to “no more than 65”. So they have merrily moved the number upward to match the number of voters per constituency; but this is not carefully and rationally followed. While the present upper limit of voters per constituency is 41,396, not one has ever reached that mark. In fact, some are only about halfway there. The island’s average is 27,500 electors per constituency, with some as low as 20,000. This seems to suggest that the workload for each MP is unequally divided, and also that we have too many of them in the House.

Interestingly, the British have an upper limit of 68,000 per constituency, working out to 646 seats in the House of Commons. Our most populous constituency of voters is about 40,000. Are the representatives in England more capable than ours? Are we over-represented? Can we afford this luxury?

It is evident that, in this age of rapid communication with the fantastic capabilities of information technology, it is much easier for members of parliament to be in touch with their constituents, and also able to cover larger areas, contact more people, and have more effective consultations in less time than they had to 1944. Yet, we are told that they need more manpower and more pay in order to run the same little island. An increase in population does not require more legislators to participate in the two-party debates. What we need is better service from State-run institutions.

Before the introduction of universal adult suffrage in 1944, the number of elected members was 14 — one for each parish — and each member was on his own, there being no party politics. Parochial boards serviced the local needs of the people and legislators efficiently did what they were required to do — concentrate on national matters. Those representatives did not have the power and authority of modern-day legislators, but they made themselves aware of the island’s needs, they respected the wishes of citizens, and they diligently debated matters of national concern with less acrimony and more achievement.

In 1944, we upped the number of legislators to 32 elected representatives, who having limited influence over national matters began to take on local needs and assignments formerly handled by the parochial boards (parish councils). Performance was not judged by the number of seats in the House, but by the devotion to duty. People did not complain about not seeing the members of Parliament, but of not seeing their work and worth. Since those days, we have just about doubled the number of elected members. Have we been getting anything near double the service? In the response of the voters may lie the answer: The percentage of participating voters has been falling while the House membership grows. Increasing the number of MPs should mean increased interest and participation by the voters, instead it appears that bigger isn’t better, it is bitter.

Jamaica could be quite easily and more efficiently managed by a House of Representatives of no more than 500 members from rationally revised constituency boundaries. With a voting population of less than two million, the average number in each of 50 constituencies would be under 40,000, which is still below the upper limit of 41,396 prescribed by present legislation.

Rationalising the constituency boundaries makes more sense that juggling them in order to accommodate more and more members for the House. In the parishes of Kingston and St Andrew, where communication and social interaction are well facilitated, there are 15 constituencies, several with significant differences in the number of voters. For instance, St Andrew North Eastern has 18,000 and St Andrew East Rural well over 30,000. In Trelawny, there are two constituencies; one with 18,000, the other with near 35,000. What good explanation do we have for this discrepancy?

Under the present so-called democratic system, the voters in Jamaica do not have equal influence in determining membership in the House of Representatives. For example, Kingston Central has one MP for its 20,000, the same as Westmoreland Central with 40,000 voters who each have the same one vote. With any form of arithmetic this is not equality.

Overall, in our system, the will of the people is not reflected in the present House of Representatives. Proof of this can be seen in the figures from the last general election, which resulted in the winning party getting over 66 per cent of the seats when it got less that 53 per cent of the people’s votes. In an equitable situation, the division of seats would have been approximately 34 to 29. It would not have been 42 to 21, which gives the government a powerful two-thirds majority, something the people had not intended. With this majority, it needs only one disgruntled Opposition senator to allow controversial issues such as the Caribbean Court of Justice to be rammed down our throats without any reference to the true will of the people.

It is true to say that other countries have the same system. However, it is not true to say that those nations have so gerrymandered the constituencies that they end up with such questionable results as ours. Pity we have not heard one peep of opposition to this system from any of the 63 people who are sworn to uphold democratic principles.

Ken Jones is a veteran journalist, public relations consultant, and is the author of books on Marcus Garvey, Alexander Bustamante and other leading historic figures. Comments: kensjones2002@yahoo.com