Elections: Look beneath the surface

It seems to stand to reason that with general elections scheduled all around the Caribbean over the next 12 months or so, much of the public comment- whether through the traditional media or the ubiquitous but unreliable social media- would tend to focus on electoral matters. Much of this would be influenced by personal choices and often rumour, speculation and, as elections nears, the razzmatazz which have become very much a part of our modern electoral landscape.

Over the past week, elections were held in two of CARICOM’s larger countries- Jamaica and Guyana, resulting in repeat victories for the incumbents. From major reports and responses, one gets the impression that the most significant aspect was the result.

Depending on one’s interest in the fortunes of the contesting parties, the responses may differ; but one cannot ignore two major stand-out points. In Jamaica there was a shocking turnout at the polls of less than 40% of those registered to vote, but the unprecedented three-peat victory of Prime Minister, Andrew Holness, has taken all the headlines and attention.

This raises serious questions about our state of democracy in the region. We have inherited, proudly it seems, an electoral system based on the British Westminster system under which, if say 10, 000 persons were registered to vote in a constituency but only 10 voted, the winner would be the person who got the most of the 10. Thus, in Trinidad and Tobago, in the contentious and strife-ridden elections of 1971, the PNM party, led by the late Dr Eric Williams, won all the seats. What a feat! Until you realize that there was a massive boycott of the polls and only 33% of the electorate- one in three persons registered to vote, turned out to cast their ballots.

So even as congratulations pour into PM Holness, one cannot ignore that more than two-thirds of the electorate in Jamaica did not do so. The turnout was a measly 39 percent.

Why did 6 out of 10 registered voters not vote in a time of much greater enlightenment? Are we not supposed to be much better educated, more socially aware than our fore parents? Or do we take things so much for granted that as long as we get a result, then we thing that democracy has been respected?

In Guyana, there was an all-too-familiar response by what was the Opposition, the party which for a long time dragged Guyana’s good name in the gutters based on fraudulent elections. Yes, the party of the late Forbes Burnham and Desmond Hoyte which had sullied Guyana’s image where free and fair elections were concerned, is alleging “fraud” which resulted in the party losing its status as the official opposition.

This has become an all-too- familiar response, not just in the Caribbean, but globally as well by parties when they are counted out at the polls. It leads to protest, demonstrations and instability. We all know this, but in our enthusiasm to win, the alleged flaws are ignored. What is needed is a thorough examination of our entire electoral process, massive education and discussion, beforehand, so that we can all agree and commit to a process, not whatever which one we find most convenient. Such an approach is a recipe for continued instability.

We are supposed to have past that stage, but where elections are concerned, in the words of the late Vincentian calypso bard, Mystic Prowler, who won the coveted Calypso Monarch title in Trinidad and Tobago in 1998, we need to“look beneath the surface”.