St Andrew North Central Member of Parliament (MP) Karl Samuda is to be commended for the principled stance he recently took in the House of Parliament with respect to the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) Administration’s decision to subsume the function of the Office of the Political Ombudsman under the aegis of the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ).

For any Jamaican politician to go against the legislative position of his or her party is, to put it bluntly, an act of political suicide. But Samuda is no ordinary politician. This is the same Samuda who, many years ago, switched his allegiance from the the Edward Seaga-led JLP to the People’s National Party (PNP), describing his “green colleagues” as a bunch of wimps, lackeys, and yes-men. And this is the same Samuda who subsequently returned to the folds of the JLP, defying all political logic, and retained his parliamentary seat — an unprecedented distinction in the annals of Jamaican politics!

This writer understands that a number of angry Labourites have described him as a “one-time PNP” and have set out to tar and feather him. But they do so at their own peril, because the veteran politician has been known to be the one who ripped the ‘S’ from Superman’s chest.

Let me make it quite clear that I hold no brief. In fact, the last time we spoke was on the grounds of King’s House in 2022 when he congratulated me for having been awarded the Order of Distinction (OD) but took umbrage with me, in a most gracious way, for having described him as being old and saying that he should throw in the towel during an interview on Cliff Hughes’
Nationwide News Network. There was no animosity as we shook hands and parted company, and he assured me that he still had much to offer by way of public service to his beloved constituency and country.

It is to be noted that Samuda has also served on the ECJ, having previously served an eight-year stint as a member of the Electoral Advisory Committee, so his rigid stance on the political ombudsman issue should not have been taken so lightly and ought to have been given more in-depth consideration. However, the JLP-controlled House, at the urging of Justice Minister Delroy Chuck, voted in unison (all 21 of them present) to have the motion passed while the seven Opposition members voted against. Interestingly, MP Samuda, in an apparently deft move, was absent during these proceedings.

Against this background, it is to be noted that in our parliamentary system constituents vote for a candidate who is expected to go to Parliament and faithfully represent their interests. However, in real terms, when that MP enters Gordon House he or she is expected to tow the party line. Hence, there is a parliamentary whip on both sides of the House who is assigned the duty of keeping members in line with respect to his or her party’s position.

In this scenario, whenever a Bill is debated and is to be passed, it is expected that MPs will follow the respective House leaders’ direction and guidance. To fall out of line is a serious ‘sin’ for which an MP or senator can be chastised, ostracised, and marginalised. Readers will recall that former PNP president and prime minister, Portia Simpson Miller, earned the wrath of some of her colleagues on her side of the House for abstaining during a vote to do with the fire service. Not so nice words were uttered in her ears, which cannot be repeated here. However, Simpson Miller, a former minister of labour and social security, must have felt constrained and so opted to let her conscience dictate rather than the party’s position.

During my sojourn in the House of Parliament a number of PNP backbenchers (I was one of them) either abstained or voted nay with respect to a private member’s motion on reparation brought by then Opposition MP Mike Henry. Needless to say, we were herded into a room and read the Riot Act after the sitting.

Of course, there is the view that MPs do not go into Gordon House unaware of the fact that they are expected to adhere to the principle of collective responsibility, and having been elected on a particular party ticket they will be blindly loyal. In an extreme case in which an MP refuses to follow this convention, then the appropriate thing to do is resign, cross the floor, or become an Independent, much to his or her peril! I well remember asking then MP Dr D K Duncan what a backbencher should do in such a case, and he chuckled and said, “That’s a good time to head to the restroom while the voting is being done!”

The potent question, therefore, is whether conscience votes should be accommodated. According to Wikipedia, a conscience or free vote is a type of vote in a legislative body, whereby legislators are allowed to vote according to their own personal conscience rather than according to an official line set down by their political party. “In many liberal democracies, particularly those that follow the parliamentary system of Government, the elected members of the legislature who belong to a political party are usually required by that party to vote in accordance with the party line on significant legislation, on pain of censure or expulsion from the party. Sometimes a particular party member, known as the whip, is responsible for maintaining this party discipline. However, in the case of a conscience vote, a party declines to dictate an official party line to follow and members may vote as they please. In countries where party discipline is less important and voting against one’s party is more common, conscience votes are generally less important.”

Finally, it is argued that, “Conscience votes are usually quite rare [as is the case in Jamaica] and are often about issues which are very contentious or a matter on which members of any single party differ in their opinions, thus making it difficult for parties to formulate official policies.” In this vein, such controversial issues as the buggery law and capital punishment come to mind.

It must be noted, too, that the same “follow the leader, leader” mantra applies to members of the Senate, although it had been anticipated that there would be some room for independence of thought in that august body. Not likely, as today, if the Ombudsman Bill is placed before the JLP-controlled Senate, a similar scenario to that which played out on Tuesday, February 6 will ensue.

In this vein, the view that room ought to be made for independent senators is a very valid one, which I personally support. And if Parliament is not to become moribund and irrelevant, there must be some amount of accommodation for dissension in order to allow the process of thesis, followed by antithesis, and then synthesis to take place in the best interest of the electorate.

Interestingly, according to Wikipedia, “In the United States, parties exercise comparatively little control over the votes of individual legislators who are almost always free to vote as they wish. Accordingly, most legislative votes in the United States can be considered free votes, although in rare circumstances a legislator may be disciplined by his or her party for a renegade vote. Such discipline usually occurs only on votes regarding procedural matters on which party unity is expected as a matter of course rather than substantive matters.

It is this writer’s view that Jamaicans should demand more accountability and transparency from their elected representatives. When all is said and done, I say, “More power to Karl Samuda”, although his Samsonian stance may not bring the whole house down (no pun intended!).

Lloyd B Smith has been involved in Jamaican media for the past 48 years. He has served as a Member of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. He hails from western Jamaica where he is popularly known as the Governor. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or lbsmith4@gmail.com.