Peaceful change, whatever the course

Published in the Jamaica Gleaner: Saturday | August 11, 2007

National debates between political candidates is a relatively modern phenomenon in Jamaican electioneering; the current series being only the fourth time we have added this phase to our General Elections.

The practice may well have been influenced by the Americans, in particular the famous televised series between Kennedy and Nixon in the 1960s for the presidency of the United States. Unlike the Americans, our politics prosper on the street - from platforms to motorcades - and by that token engender greater people contact and involvement, which surely are important aspects of democratic behaviour.

But therein lies some of the uglier manifestations of political violence which reached high levels in the 1980s and spawned such correctives as political codes of conduct and a Peace Management Initiative. Our politics have reached that stage, having evolved from colonial governance to the learning curves of self-government and political independence.

In short, the realities of adjusting to the power sharing of Government and Opposition collided with the economics of administering the practicalities of running a country. The people's demands had to be met; and scarce benefits became a familiar phrase in the allocation of resources.

The competition in the current election is sharper because what became the two-term hold on power in turn by the JLP andPNP reached the unprecedented four-term tenure by the present holders. The JLP must therefore feel that their turn is long overdue.

In the context of competitive politics, the street platform lends itself to outlandish behaviour and emotional appeals to the proletariat; indeed to many it was benign entertainment, particularly in the early decades of internal self-government. Orange and green party flags now identify territory and adorn motorcades which pose their own threat to civil order.

As such, it is small wonder that the production of manifestos is done in the last stages of the campaign followed by the nationally televised debates. These tightly controlled spectacles transmitted from television studios should satisfy observers who have been demanding more emphasis on debate about the issues facing the nation, rather than the ribaldry and character assassination that have surfaced in recent weeks.

Even though arguing about these issues might sharpen the conflict, that is fine since contending ideas is the essence of democratic practice. In our view, such exchanges should be decentralised from the outset of the campaign in the type of townhall meetings that are also a feature of American practice. This would broaden the exposure of ideas in various parochial regions that may well conform with contemplated constitutional reforms that could also embrace local government.

Televised debates will reach a wider audience; but there is no substitute for pressing the flesh by candidates on the hustings. Both approaches can enrich this process of divesting and acquiring political power for the benefit of the people and the nation. But there must be an added educational element that stresses change by peaceful means, whatever course is chosen.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.