That the issue of fixed election dates is back in the national spotlight is merely a reflection of the plodding nature of legislation in this country.

We recall that in June 2008, then Prime Minister Bruce Golding said the Government had sought legal advice on the implementation of a fixed date for general elections and was expecting a response from the Attorney General within another three weeks.

At the time, a Jamaica Information Service report told us that Mr Golding said the information received thus far suggested that a fixed date could not be implemented without a referendum on Sections 64 (2) and 65 (2) of the constitution, as both were deeply entrenched.

He said while sections 64 (1) and 65 (1) could be amended in Parliament, in keeping with a previous ruling by the United Kingdom Privy Council, such an amendment may be considered unconstitutional if it affects other sections that are deeply entrenched.

Mr Golding also said the Government remained committed to having a fixed election date and would continue discussions with the Opposition on the matter.

Since then, even as there was nary a dissenting voice, the matter has moved at snail’s pace.

Now, we are seeing a verbal joust between constitutional law expert Dr Lloyd Barnett and Mrs Marlene Malahoo Forte, the minister of legal and constitutional affairs, on whether there was consensus on the introduction of a fixed election date during deliberations of the Constitutional Reform Committee.

Dr Barnett says there was consensus from all sides, while Mrs Malahoo Forte insists she is “not aware of any”.

Regardless of whose memory on this matter is better, we reiterate that there is enough on record to advise our legislators that a game of cat and mouse with the nation’s election dates can be of no productive purpose.

We have no doubt that changing from the current system that gives the prime minister discretion to call general elections at any time within the life of the Parliament will not be easily attained. After all, successive heads of Government have used it to gain political advantage. As such, moving to the ideal of a fixed election date will require a changing of the mindset of the electorate and legislators.

Naturally, the move to this level of political maturity must address the possibility of a crisis in governance, putting in place a mechanism for the Government to seek a new mandate.

Surely we will miss the banter between politicos that has defined our politics as prime ministers hold election dates to their chest awaiting days of particular significance to them. But such a step in our political evolution beckons to us.

However, elections take a toll on the country. The run-up and polls themselves take the focus away from determined stewardship as the struggle for power between political parties rises to the top.

Challenging as it may be, the prime minister who will lead us into the next five years must give importance to the establishment of a fixed election date. This is the level of stability the country needs to further advance the mission of growth.

Investors and entrepreneurs need this safeguard as they put their trust in the host of possibilities that abound. Also, the team at the electoral office will celebrate a fixed target.