IN every election campaign, there’s usually one defining issue.

In 2011, Andrew Holness’s bitter medicine comment, though true, sealed the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) fate. In 2016, the $1.5-million income tax threshold proposal, coupled with the People’s National Party’s (PNP) stubborn refusal to debate and its intractable fixation on Holness’s house, damned its prospects. In 2020, the shadow of a pandemic loomed large. In 2025, the Government’s plan to import 110 refurbished school buses for use by rural children may well be such an issue.

Honesty demands that I tell you up front that I support the initiative. Not because it is perfect. Not because I do not have questions. But because children in rural Jamaica deserve the same privileges and benefits as their urban counterparts.

There are several long-standing ills that need the remedy of a rural bus system.

I begin with the basic cost of transportation. As a child attending school in an urban area, I cannot recall ever paying more than $30 for the entire day in bus fare. My address afforded me a privilege that was not extended to others. I was surprised to learn that my friends in rural Jamaica were paying up to $300 per day to be transported to school. As a basic principle, that felt unjust and inequitable. It does to this day.

I, therefore, see the rural bus system as part of a broader push to tear down the walls of inequity which have long characterised Jamaica’s education system. We have tolerated and confined our students to this first- and second-class status for too long. The majority of rural schools are too often poorly resourced and ill-equipped to provide the tools to make their students competitive graduates in a fast-changing world. If we can remedy even one area, their transportation, we have a moral responsibility as a society to do so. It’s time we pay more than lip service to rural development.

But beyond the economics and inequity, there is an even more urgent matter — safety. The recklessness with which rural children are transported by minibus and taxi operators demands a response. The pages of Jamaican history are stained with the blood of rural children who perished in road crashes. Their only crime was trying to get to school on time.

When their lives are not being snuffed out, they’re herded into the trunks of cars and made to sacrifice their dignity in the ugliness of “lap-up” culture. These conditions are not only ripe for fatal road crashes; they also enable the worst instincts of those who would seek to prey on the innocence of our children, particularly our girls.

That is the history that has brought us to this moment.

As I understand it, the retrofitted buses will include several safety features: a school warden, trained drivers, speed monitors, and cameras that allow monitoring during transport. The fare will be $50. This is regardless of the length of the journey.

The National Parent-Teacher Association has come out in full support of the programme. At least five rural principals who’ve spoken publicly have endorsed it, including the principal of Holmwood Technical High School, a school that knows all too well the tragic consequences of unsafe student transportation.

So what of the parliamentary Opposition?

Well, they say they are opposed to the buses because they believe them to be unsafe. Despite the absence of any real basis for that claim, I’m prepared to accept that the spokesmen for the PNP are acting in good faith. Let’s accept them at their best and assume they mean well.

But even then, their position rings hollow.

Reasonable people can be forgiven for asking: Is this the way to go about it? Has any member of the Opposition requested a tour or a professional mechanical assessment of the retrofitted buses? To denigrate and dismiss the system without first satisfying yourself that there is, in fact, a legitimate concern smacks of political gamesmanship. It feels like putting political ambition above the interests of children. That’s never good politics. It’s even worse optics.

What’s more, the PNP president, Mark Golding, has put forward a counter-proposal that is as unworkable as it is out of step with the lived realities of rural families. Golding would subsidise bus and taxi operators to transport rural children. In effect, he would provide taxpayer funding to some of the very drivers who have already proven themselves reckless in the care and protection of children.

Of course, there are rural taxi drivers who are upstanding and honourable. But how would Golding determine who is suitable? Has he ascertained whether there would be enough drivers who would pass the fit and proper test to exclusively transport children? Here, I’m assuming that any driver receiving the subsidy would first have to pass the most rigorous safety assessments and background checks.

I understand the widespread scepticism about the PNP’s plan, which I see reflected online. It does not strike me as well thought out.

But, you see, my grandmother would always tell me: “Tom drunk, but Tom nuh fool.” So, conceivably, Golding understands the limitations in his policy ideation. A reasonable person is left to wonder: Was this really ever about the children? Or was this a naked political gamble to bring on side the minibus and taxi operators, who will be a crucial resource for election-day mobilisation?

I hesitate to ask, because I want to believe our political leaders always act in good faith. But in light of all the facts available, one must question whether the PNP is rolling the dice on rural transportation for children in order to secure for themselves a short-term political advantage. The people of Jamaica must decide that.

But, for me, it’s bad politics and worse optics.

If this is indeed the political calculation, the PNP may be better served by seeking to bring on side the thousands of parents who just want a safe mode of transportation for their children. That, it seems to me, is good politics and better optics.

To be sure, none of this is to suggest the planned bus system is perfect. Of course, it isn’t. I doubt there’s a Jamaican who wouldn’t rather see a brand-new fleet of buses for our children. But the assessments tell us we cannot afford that as a country. Certainly not at this juncture.

Additionally, there are legitimate questions about the cost of retrofitting these units. So far as I can tell, the transport minister, Daryl Vaz, has not revealed a price tag. He also has not given a projection as to how long these buses are expected to last before they will need to be retired. Minister Vaz owes the country that full transparency. He must give account for it. Such a conversation would perhaps better serve the national interest.

I understand this is the silly season. I understand that tensions are high. And for both political parties, this election is a defining one with enormous consequences. I get that. But if we cannot elevate the conversation for our children, rural children, then we should not ever hope to advance as a country. Progress will continue to elude us.

The bottom line is this: The debate should not have descended the way it has.

Ricardo Brooks is a journalist at Nationwide News Network. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or brooks.a.ricardo@gmail.com.

Ricardo Brooks