“Demos kratia” is a Greek phrase which may be literally translated as “the people rule”. From this phrase, the English word democracy was created, which, therefore, means that the essence of a democracy is a system of governance in which the citizenry makes decisions. In most democracies, representational politics/governance is the catalyst through which demos kratia is achieved — people elect officials who are mandated to represent their best interests.

As a citizen with key interest in understanding the issues surrounding the passage of the Bill to make Portmore the 15th parish of Jamaica, I attended the February 18, 2025 town hall meeting which ended prematurely when supporters of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) approached the front of the room with placards, seemingly in protest. What I observed and learnt at that meeting was troubling, to say the least, and makes me worried that a faction of leaders of my country — whether knowingly or unknowingly – is incrementally pursuing a path to governance in which ‘the power’ (well some) is removed from the people.

The meeting started out quite informatively, beginning with a technocrat’s presentation on the history of the boundary changes of Portmore, inclusive of the proposed adjustments. Additionally, I found the process by which Portmore became a municipality a perfect example of how a democracy ought to work.

Member of Parliament (MP) Fitz Jackson recounted how citizens’ associations within the territory were dissatisfied with the quality of representation they received from the St Catherine Municipality, the jurisdiction of which they initially were a part. They voiced their dissatisfaction to their representatives, and what followed was, as the MP recalled, a nine-year process of governance structure reformation and innovation, resulting in the status quo.

The citizens of Portmore who participated in this process, including Aneita Lee, the widow of the former mayor, the late George Lee, successfully advocated for the following unique conditions and, importantly, insisted that they ought to be protected by law:

1) That the mayor, unlike all other parish councils, would not be selected by the party majority, but would be directly elected by the citizens of Portmore

2) That the boundaries of the municipality only be adjusted with the consent of one-seventh of the citizenry and proposals to adjust the boundaries would become necessary for the further development of the territory, understandably to become necessary given it was relatively small at the time but showed promise of growth. These measures were safeguards to limit the degree to which partisan politics influences the design and structure of the municipality and its governance systems.

This history reminded me why I am proud to be Jamaican. Unfortunately, however, as soon as my pride surged, my mind was troubled. I could not help but ask: Was this history of Portmore considered when the Bill in Parliament was developed and presented in the way it was?

I genuinely do not get the sense that many residents, whether from the JLP or the People’s National Party (PNP), are averse to Portmore attaining parish status. Their reservations, in my opinion, are a consequence of the seemingly inappropriate way in which the process was conducted. The citizens who fought for the Portmore they now reside in feel largely that they were locked out of decisions to radically change it. The implications of the points of concern are enough to prompt the Government that full speed ahead is not in the best interest of democracy.

Firstly, a charter was developed and ratified to legally ensure that citizens were integrally a part of any boundary adjustments in the municipality. They, however, complain that they were not aware of any widespread town hall meetings or any exclusive meetings with citizens’ association groups to solicit the will of the people.

Our Government suffers from the illusion that a successful town hall meeting is one in which ‘you talk, I talk, I hear you, then I decide’. Even if 100 town hall meetings were conducted, if they were not like those held during the genesis of the Portmore Municipality, then no true democratic process was followed. Town hall meetings on these important issues warrant the documentation of the will of the people and frequent consultations, like wage negotiations, to arrive at consensus. Simply gauging chants and vibes from a crowd falls way short of the claim that the Bill expresses the will of the people. This is a threat to democracy.

Secondly, it is odd that this Bill was presented and passed in Parliament at a time when the ruling JLP has a massive majority in the House. It has only been one year since the last local government election in which a mayor from the PNP was directly elected (it is important to note the Bill would require that the mayor be selected by the majority in the council, not directly by the people). It is curious that this new Bill is being pushed during the year that a general election is constitutionally required. Given this context, even if one assumes the Bill as presented is the best option, it certainly does seem highly political to an onlooker. Good governance dictates that one must avoid the very appearance of bias — a lesson former Technology and Energy Minister Andrew Wheatley learnt the hard way.

Moreover, the fact that the mayor of Portmore will no longer be directly elected by the people is a direct disregard for the will of the citizens who thought it important enough to require the Government at the time to make it law. This is an obvious threat to democracy.

Thirdly, it has been stated that the Portmore Municipality model would hopefully serve as a template for other municipalities, given its superiority in areas important for every member of the electorate: transparency and movement away from partisan politics. It cannot be denied that there is a greater degree of fairness to be achieved when the majority in the council does not decide the mayor. Members of the public and the Government are literally crying foul given recent allegations about councils being biased towards the majority party.

When people directly elect the mayor, it provides a greater opportunity for the citizens to select the mayor they think would provide the best representation rather than relying on councillors who are presumed to be politically biased. Hypothetically, the current Portmore model allows for a council in which most councillors could be members of party A, but the mayor is from party B. More encouraging is the fact that this model was the brainchild of the people themselves.

We must ask ourselves: What was so fundamentally flawed with such a highly democratic model that it needed to change? If the Government has data on those inefficiencies, then they need to present it to the people of Portmore who were instrumental in its design. It is noteworthy, though, that the Electoral Office of Jamaica’s (EOJ) data on local government elections do not support any notion of unique voter apathy in Portmore mayoral voting. The relatively close voter turnout indicates that people take it seriously enough to be willing to complete two ballots on election day. Changing this without evidence of a failing system gives credence to the accusation that the Bill is more in the pursuit of political goals than it is for the benefit of the people. Again, I emphasise that this is a threat to democracy.

That town hall meeting ended with me having more questions than answers; one of which is: What happened to the charter that was designed to safeguard the boundaries of Portmore and ensure direct citizen involvement in major changes? If the Government ignored it, then this Bill is a threat to democracy. If the Government repealed it to clear a legitimate path for their proposed amendments, then this Bill is also a threat to democracy.

The citizens did not get answers to questions on implications to their land titles, employment opportunities for the youth, and a specific list of communities that would be excluded from the boundaries of the parish of Portmore. If meetings like these were in fact held and concluded without polling the residents or providing answers to these and other critical questions, then this Bill is a threat to democracy.

kevgrant20@gmail.com