A sense of shock is still being felt throughout the country based on the results of the election held on February 25, 2016. Pollsters, members of the media and the private sector, international partners, and of course the People’s National Party (PNP) are clearly still trying to understand what happened on election day. I dare say some members of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) are themselves shocked at the election result.

You can expect various reasons to be forwarded. You will hear about the economy and the hard times being faced by many. However, this does not fully explain the loss, as we know that whatever party is in power there would have been economic challenges. If we speak of crime, it has to be admitted that there was some level of success based on the inter-sectoral approach taken by the outgoing minister of national security.

The local pollsters, in an effort to explain the surprising loss, are going back into the field and coming up with a litany of reasons, but they are simply not adding up. The quarterbacking being done by some of the pollsters does not provide a full explanation. The substantial loss of seats by the PNP suggests an underlying level of disaffection amongst supporters which was not picked up by the pollsters.

What really happened then? It is a fact that many of the PNP’s supporters stayed away from the polls. A significant portion of the PNP’s base can be termed “faith-based”, and this group cherishes certain principles and ideals. The PNP’s faith-based supporters have been very upset with the party because of the belief that the PNP was quite willing to make changes to the buggery law without consulting the public. The PNP did nothing to calm fears that it was already making secret deals with international partners and was waiting until after the election to reveal these plans. To make matters worse, some of the young turks in the party, instead of focusing on their areas or ministerial responsibility, kept telling us how beneficial abortion would be for the country. The pollsters missed the faith-based issues because, to some extent, these matters are best described as “delicate” and some people are fairly reluctant to speak publicly on them.

How can a party which prides itself on being street-smart totally miss the views and feelings of the common man? How can the party not know how it was being branded on the streets? The faith-based community felt slighted by the PNP who was quite insensitive to the concerns of this group. This once-loyal segment of the PNP’s base stayed away in droves on election day. Some could not, in good conscience, vote for the PNP because of the unresolved issues and the stubbornness of the party in not clearly indicating a position one way or the other. A few of these supporters were so upset with the PNP that out of the protest they voted for the JLP. Others, in spite of the disappointing rhetoric from the PNP, still went out and voted for the party, but it was without the usual passion.

The PNP, as it deliberates the reasons for its shock loss, should examine the manner in which it treated its faith-based supporters during the last four years and then decide how best to repair this important relationship. The PNP should at least publicly acknowledge the deep hurt and bewilderment its public stance on certain issues caused within the faith-based community.

marshburns@hotmail.com