May 9, 2017
I like politics, not the representational bit (I wouldn’t contest elections), but I enjoy studying how politicians operate – the politicking and the governing. But for a while I lost interest in it and would only occasionally comment on our political affairs.
Leading up to, and following the 2016 general elections in Jamaica, I realised that my interest came alive again. I started to pay attention again. I started paying attention for two primary reasons:
- The soft revolution that is taking place in the JLP
- The slow pace at which the PNP is getting rid of its arrogance and political deafness
A new election cycle will soon (2020 thereabout) be upon us, and I think the JLP is positioning itself to win a second term – something it hasn’t been able to do since the early 80s (though they were ‘handed’ their last second term given the PNP did not contest the 1983 general election).
One of the things that we learn in our exploration of political culture is how power, money, the people, the politicians and the systems work.
The JLP is teaching itself (finally) to understand, listen, and respond to the people – the people who will be motivated to vote, usually for selfish reasons, whether it’s because of a tax break, a salary increase, better roads, equitable access to education, better laws, the appearance of gender equality, respect for diversity in the leadership, or a reduction in crime.
It is really about the sometimes few things we value as individuals. So if someone places high value on constitutional reform, progressive taxation, gender equality, and low crime rates, if a party delivers on even two out of the four ares of interest, it is likely that such a person will give the incumbent a second run.
People who understand political culture will understand that they just need to find one or two issues that are important to different categories of people and deliver on those issues. So if you identify say six categories of people who can win you the majority of your seats in parliament, all you need to do is find the one or two issues that are important to each of those six categories of people and they’re ‘sold’ on you.
Once you do that, and do it well (without arrogance, because many Jamaicans don’t like arrogance), the rest of it – the power, the money, the systems – will work for you the politician, to the benefit of the party, then victory is yours. It’s certainly no easy feat, but if you understand the principle of it, strategizing with that understanding in mind will yield the victory results you desire. Some pundits like to say all politics is local, but I prefer to stick with those who say all politics is psychological. Why? You always have to win the people first.
If you win the people, the money will roll in from the funders (the corrupt ones and the less corrupt ones plus the crowd funding ones).
If you win the people, the power brokers (including those with the power of language, communication and media) will stack in your favour and will position you for victory.
If you win the people, the systems will always work in your favour, because once you win the people, you have control over the systems, and you can manipulate the systems to your advantage (even in opposition).
The soft revolution that I see taking place in the JLP is because a few people in the party seem to have recognised the importance of ‘winning the people’ and ‘winning with the people’. And some of the most influential JLP Members of Parliament in both houses (upper and lower) are willing to L.I.S.T.E.N., even to current and former comrades. Mind you, not everyone is listening, but enough of the ones people pay attention to, are listening. And people love people who listen.
The PNP on the other hand is still woefully affected by arrogance, especially the arrogance of some of its least charming but well-known and popular comrades. I believe the party is ‘losing the people’ and ‘losing with the people’ because of this arrogance. And if they are losing with the people it means they do not have enough influential voices within the party who understand Jamaica’s current and emerging political culture. In many ways the party has personified the arrogance of Seaga when he was too stubborn to leave.
Now if you’re losing with the people, I believe you will lose everywhere else even if you still believe this is ‘PNP country’. Remember we don’t like people with foul attitudes, and we don’t like when people tek wi fi fool. And in my opinion, right now the PNP has too many foul attitude people trying to tek people fi fool, and are being given spaces and platforms from which to speak. At the same time, the public is not hearing enough from those within the party who are committed to ‘renewal’.
Woman to woman and man to man, I don’t believe there is significant difference in expertise (or the lack thereof) between the two major political parties and who’s in, or would be in their respective cabinets. But the JLP seems to appreciate the value of listening more than the PNP does and this will mean they will get more done with the support of the people. In my opinion, for example, Floyd listens more than Lisa. Tufton listens more than Ferguson. Ruel listens more than Ronnie. Kamina listens more than AJ. Andrew listens more than Portia/Peter. Even Audley listens more than Peter.
While on the flip side, in my opinion, only in two instances you have folks from the PNP listening more than the JLP: Mark listens more than Chuck and Julian listens more than Wheatley, but the latter seems to be changing.
The PNP needs to fix this if they intend to win the next general election. Peter is already more unattractive than Andrew for multiple reasons, so the party has to learn to give more space and platforms to the few people in the shadow cabinet who are willing to listen. It also needs to give more spaces and platforms to members of the party who can ‘win the people’ and ‘win with the people’.
I don’t know much about their communications team, but, but, but, I know it needs some serious work, probably the same kinda work Lazarus needed.
I will be watching to see how the PNP shapes up for the next election cycle, because I am sure the JLP will be coming with a revolution. And when the JLP goh hard, election always nice fi observe and analyse.
Political Hypocrites
Our political system leaves very little room for hardcore honesty as politicians and as voters. We have fooled ourselves into thinking that even those who purport to live by saintly standards are not, on occasion, forced to be hypocritical whether as an elector, a Member of Parliament, Cabinet Minister, or even as president of one of the major political parties.
I am interested here in writing a quick note on electors and how our political system can inadvertently forced us into being hypocritical voters.
We know that our political system does not allow us to decide who should be the Head of Government that ‘luxury’ reserved for party delegates who get lucky if their party wins at least 32 of the 63 constituencies when they go to the polls for General Elections.
Electors vote for their Member of Parliament (MP). That is what the system allows.
But since we know that a simple majority is what it will take for our party of choice to form the next government, some electors may vote on that basis regardless of their own justified convictions about how a candidate may perform in their constituency.
Consider the hypothetical below.
I live in a constituency where the People’s National Party (PNP) candidate who is also the incumbent has been performing exceptionally well and is running against a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) caretaker in whom I justifiably have no confidence. But I am more convinced that the JLP will do a better job at managing the country than the PNP, and I support the philosophy and policies of the JLP. What do I do? I vote for the wutliss JLP representative in my constituency because I want to ensure that I increase the odds of the JLP winning the General Elections – every vote counts.
Voters do that. And in my opinion that is a soft form of corruption, or if you prefer, hypocrisy. If enough voters do that, we may end up with quite a number of wutliss MPs from one side or the other because people are ‘voting’ for a Prime Minister. When we do that, we are sending a message that we don’t care enough about our Lower House legislators or the capacity of an MP to represent their constituency.
We would have done an injustice to our constituency…
When we go to the polls and we mark our Xs on the ballot paper we are sending a message that this is the person who we believe will best represent our constituency. But for some of us, that is not what we do; what we actually do is lie.
In a system like this, some potentially incredible MPs will never be voted in because it is not their ability, efficiency, commitment, dedication, or innovativeness that matter to some of us; it’s their political alignment.
I am not going to tell people to be politically honest or sincere, to each their own conscience; but I will say this, the people who are pretending that they are saintly, virtuous, and so full of integrity should hop off that high donkey.
It is not just politicians who are duty-bound to act with political integrity; as electors, we also have a duty. We are entrusted by the laws of the land to employ (elect) the best candidates to sit in the Lower House. When (if) we don’t do that because our favourite party may lose, we are corrupting the process, and sending wutliss representatives to the Lower House.
I must say though, that I blame the system more than I do the person, and it is for this reason that I echo the numerous calls within the Articulate Minority Majority for the kind of Constitutional Reform that would allow the electorate to vote for both their MP and their PM. In this new system, it has been recommended that an MP be precluded from being a Member of the Cabinet. And Cabinet appointments must be confirmed by the Public Services Commission or an/the Integrity Commission.
There’s a lot more that we would need to do to make this workable, but I believe it can be done, and must be done since our system is set up to breed conflicts of interest, which inadvertently results in political dishonesty and hypocrisy among electors.
Latoya Nugent 
Thoughts?