Time for the vigilant and alert to take a stand

Prime Minister Dr Andrew Holness has announced the date of the much-anticipated general election. It will be held on September 3, 2025.

This has ended all speculation concerning the date. It must be noted that despite the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) deriding the timing of the announcement, the date is within the prescribed constitutional time frame. It is idle chatter to criticise this. What should be of greater moment is to assess whether the country should or should not have fixed election dates and whether such an important aspect of our democratic life should be left to the whims and fancies of any one person of a political party.

Now that the date has been announced and the race to Gordon House and Jamaica House is well engaged, it is necessary that voters subject each party to the greatest scrutiny. They must realise, more than ever before, that all 63 candidates vying for a seat in Parliament are, in fact, asking them for a job; they are the ultimate employers of parliamentarians. These politicians will be paid salaries drawn from the public treasury which is made up of the hard-earned tax revenues, whether direct or indirect, that the people pay. This simple fact has escaped too many of us and so we tend to grovel at the feet of politicians as if we owe them something; as if we are begging for scraps of meat or the proverbial crumbs that fall from the master’s table.

In a democracy, the vote is among the most important tools that citizens have to hold their representatives accountable. So the choice between the two major political parties that have governed the country from 1962 is a sovereign, if not a sacred, one. There are clear indications that people have grown more mature in appreciating the value of the vote. The diehards will still give their lives to the cause, but even they are questioning if there is not more to it than they are receiving; thus, people have become more transactional in their political dispositions. They are demanding more and will not hesitate to put to the curb those they deem to not be doing a good job.

Let me break off here and say something about the new political party, the Jamaica First Movement (JFM), that has been formed by Reverend Al Miller et al. I am all for the broadening of democracy, but I have to question the formation of the party at this late stage and what it is really trying to achieve. What can it do, even in alliance with other parties, to change the disposition of the Jamaican people to the two leading political parties.

Rev Miller’s proposition is that his party will hold power for one five-year term. Really now? The allure of power and the narcissism of those who want to wield it do not just disappear overnight. If by some miracle Rev Miller’s party should be swept to power, I would like to ask whether its members would be so disposed to one term. I believe in miracles and in the power of prayer to change things, but I believe the JFM is being a bit naïve if it thinks it will garner the support of a broad cross section of the Jamaican people who call themselves Christians to their cause. And is it appropriate to apply a Christian label to a movement which obviously has not been well thought out because of the belief that it will attract mass support from what is considered a Christian nation. Sorry, Rev Miller, in my view, this is a fool’s errand which will not see the light of day, not for this election cycle anyway.

In the meantime, there is a call for the manifesto of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) to be made known. The PNP has jumped ahead, but from the contours of what it is presenting, grammatical errors and all, artificial intelligence (AI)-generated or not, the party does seem to be in a spot of bother. The problem it faces is that it has not been in power for almost a decade. Therefore, it made a plethora of promises to the electorate, which, in my opinion, are not often backed up by facts or any thoroughgoing knowledge of how it will fund these promises.

Also, a great deal of what the PNP is proposing, from the fixing of roads to initiatives in the educational and agricultural sectors — to name two — are already either being done or will continue to be done by the present Government. Therefore, the manifesto is not offering anything new and different. Perhaps its best bet would have been to say how it would do things differently by refining existing programmes to better help the Jamaican people. The PNP needs to convince voters that its approach will bear better fruits than what is now happening under the JLP. But the elephant in the room is that the ruling JLP’s achievements over the decade have been so all-pervasive that there is no area of national endeavour that the PNP can credibly apply any new initiative so revolutionary it will capture the imagination of Jamaicans.

What will the PNP do differently from what is already being done? This is the crucial question that the voter must ask himself/herself. For example, it would help if the Opposition could tell the nation what differently it would do in fighting crime to continue the sterling work that is being done by the security forces in reducing the murder rate and generally containing crime. Most importantly, how will the PNP fund the many promises it has been dishing out like confetti from every political platform? How will the party do so without returning the country to a period of failed reckless profligacy in the management of its finances? The ordinary Jamaican is beginning to get it, and you can’t just pull a wet blanket over his/her eyes.

A word to the fence-sitters must be given. Jamaica’s participatory democracy will not become stronger if increasing numbers of people continue to withdraw themselves from the process. I recognise that the truly independent person can make a huge difference in determining an election outcome. But that outcome cannot be achieved if you do not vote. You might not like either party, but they are what you have at the present time. For good or ill, one of them will govern your life for the next five years.

Look at what is happening around you; look at what the future may represent, depending on who wins, and get engaged in the political debates that are raging. If you cannot do these things, you hardly have any credibility in bleating your disaffections when you did nothing to even prevent them. In my next piece I will discuss which party I believe to be best suited to govern Jamaica after the election. More anon.

Blacklisting any media house from participating in national political debates is wrong. In a democracy all well-thinking citizens should do everything to ensure that the issues facing the country are widely ventilated and discussed. This is not only essential to the democratic process, but it also ensures that citizens are better informed when making their decisions at the ballot box.

It is in this light that I view as reprehensible and dangerous the objection of the PNP to the participation of Nationwide News Network (NNN) in the debates to be put on by the Jamaica Debates Commission (JDC). NNN is a premier media outfit in Jamaica, which this column has had the occasion to commend for its journalistic integrity.

The banning of journalists from participation in such an important event during a compelling national election cannot be allowed. It is hard to fathom what the PNP is trying to achieve here. What will be the response of the JDC to this outrage? More importantly, what will be the response of the media fraternity to this obvious attack on press freedom. Today it is NNN, who will it be tomorrow?

This column condemns this sordid development and hopes that good sense will prevail in this matter.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; Your Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. He hosts a podcast — Mango Tree Dialogues — on his YouTube channel. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.

Raulston Nembhard