Tweet
We need caregivers not caretakers
We need caregivers not caretakers
Henley Morgan
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
There are few newspaper headlines that have frightened me as much as the one that appeared on Page 3 of the Monday, April 14, 2008 edition of the Daily Observer. It read: "McKenzie takes control of Kingston Central constituency".
Upon reading the headline, the first thought that entered my mind was, something bad must have happened to the sitting member of parliament for the constituency, Mr Ronald Thwaites. Had he resigned, died, migrated or in some other way been removed from office? What else could have occasioned the apparent takeover of the constituency by the overambitious and politically astute KSAC mayor, senator and chairman of the Jamaica Labour Party Area Council 1?
Reading further into the newspaper report allayed my concern for Mr Thwaites' well-being, but caused new and deeper worries for politics as practised in Jamaica. In the piece, Mr McKenzie was quoted as saying, "I am going to assume responsibility for the constituency. It is a constituency that we have never won, but it is one that we can win, and right now it is without a caretaker." The report went on to mention that the constituency is one of three without a JLP caretaker; the others being St Andrew Western and St Andrew South East.
This tradition of having constituency caretakers is the most resistant method of perpetuating political tribalism. Deeply entrenched in local politics, the naming of constituency caretakers is nothing short of a naked attempt to divide people along party lines in the hope of their receiving political largesse - handouts - through their political representative. Executive director of the Dispute Resolution Foundation (DRF), Donna Parchment, has characterised the practice of constituency caretakers as "the single most divisive practice in Jamaican society".
In modern political democracies, at the end of a contest for a seat in the House of Representatives, the loser returns to being an ordinary citizen instead of being an albatross around the neck of constituents. The winner goes on to be the representative of all (I repeat, all) the people in the constituency. Not so in Jamaica. After each general election one-half the country unfortunate enough not to support the winner, is made redundant. The caretaker remains a fixture with a seat at the table to ensure his tribe gets a share of the scarce benefits and spoils. As a reward for his contribution toward the continuing tribalism of Jamaican politics, the caretaker is rewarded with an opportunity to run for the party in the next general election, thereby giving him access to a bigger trough from which political adherents feed to the demise of their personal aspirations to be proud self-supporting members of society.
This practice of dividing the people along political lines goes back to the very beginning of universal adult suffrage in Jamaica. Just after the December 1944 general elections, former premier and national hero, Alexander Bustamante, set the stage for the dog-eat-dog style of Jamaican politics when he rewarded his party's supporters with jobs, political favours and other scarce benefits. Since then, the dogfight for political spoils and benefits has never ended and, in fact, has been institutionalised in sinister ways.
One of the political historians in our midst may wish to set the record straight, but from my own limited study of the matter I have not been able to find an exact precedence for the naming of caretakers within the Westminster system of parliamentary governance. I am left to believe that it evolved out of the fact that the people who fought for the right of Jamaicans to enjoy universal adult suffrage (the vote) were also union leaders. Maybe innocently, at first, the intention was to ensure representation (meaning a voice) for all the people pretty much in the same way labour unions provide representation for members. With the passage of time and the legacy of a failed political system, we must see the nexus for what it is. At best, the practice is the very antithesis of the democratic process it portends to be integral to, and at worst it may be unconstitutional.
The recently announced Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is the latest attempt by our elected officials to channel resources to people at the grass roots. One should not prejudge the genuineness of the stated intention of the government that the allocation and distribution of scarce taxpayers' dollars will be untainted by political considerations. Prime Minister Golding, who is serious about making fundamental changes to the political landscape, must seize the golden opportunity and come out against the practice of constituency caretakers, which will make a mockery of wonderfully conceived social programmes such as the CDF.
It's time we end the divisive practices which gave birth to political garrisons and are major contributors to the ruination of Jamaica. Where the duly elected member of parliament plays the role of caregiver to the people in the constituency, and does so without favour or partisan political consideration, there need be no constituency caretaker.
hmorgan@cwjamaica.com
Henley Morgan
Wednesday, May 07, 2008
There are few newspaper headlines that have frightened me as much as the one that appeared on Page 3 of the Monday, April 14, 2008 edition of the Daily Observer. It read: "McKenzie takes control of Kingston Central constituency".
Upon reading the headline, the first thought that entered my mind was, something bad must have happened to the sitting member of parliament for the constituency, Mr Ronald Thwaites. Had he resigned, died, migrated or in some other way been removed from office? What else could have occasioned the apparent takeover of the constituency by the overambitious and politically astute KSAC mayor, senator and chairman of the Jamaica Labour Party Area Council 1?
Reading further into the newspaper report allayed my concern for Mr Thwaites' well-being, but caused new and deeper worries for politics as practised in Jamaica. In the piece, Mr McKenzie was quoted as saying, "I am going to assume responsibility for the constituency. It is a constituency that we have never won, but it is one that we can win, and right now it is without a caretaker." The report went on to mention that the constituency is one of three without a JLP caretaker; the others being St Andrew Western and St Andrew South East.
This tradition of having constituency caretakers is the most resistant method of perpetuating political tribalism. Deeply entrenched in local politics, the naming of constituency caretakers is nothing short of a naked attempt to divide people along party lines in the hope of their receiving political largesse - handouts - through their political representative. Executive director of the Dispute Resolution Foundation (DRF), Donna Parchment, has characterised the practice of constituency caretakers as "the single most divisive practice in Jamaican society".
In modern political democracies, at the end of a contest for a seat in the House of Representatives, the loser returns to being an ordinary citizen instead of being an albatross around the neck of constituents. The winner goes on to be the representative of all (I repeat, all) the people in the constituency. Not so in Jamaica. After each general election one-half the country unfortunate enough not to support the winner, is made redundant. The caretaker remains a fixture with a seat at the table to ensure his tribe gets a share of the scarce benefits and spoils. As a reward for his contribution toward the continuing tribalism of Jamaican politics, the caretaker is rewarded with an opportunity to run for the party in the next general election, thereby giving him access to a bigger trough from which political adherents feed to the demise of their personal aspirations to be proud self-supporting members of society.
This practice of dividing the people along political lines goes back to the very beginning of universal adult suffrage in Jamaica. Just after the December 1944 general elections, former premier and national hero, Alexander Bustamante, set the stage for the dog-eat-dog style of Jamaican politics when he rewarded his party's supporters with jobs, political favours and other scarce benefits. Since then, the dogfight for political spoils and benefits has never ended and, in fact, has been institutionalised in sinister ways.
One of the political historians in our midst may wish to set the record straight, but from my own limited study of the matter I have not been able to find an exact precedence for the naming of caretakers within the Westminster system of parliamentary governance. I am left to believe that it evolved out of the fact that the people who fought for the right of Jamaicans to enjoy universal adult suffrage (the vote) were also union leaders. Maybe innocently, at first, the intention was to ensure representation (meaning a voice) for all the people pretty much in the same way labour unions provide representation for members. With the passage of time and the legacy of a failed political system, we must see the nexus for what it is. At best, the practice is the very antithesis of the democratic process it portends to be integral to, and at worst it may be unconstitutional.
The recently announced Constituency Development Fund (CDF) is the latest attempt by our elected officials to channel resources to people at the grass roots. One should not prejudge the genuineness of the stated intention of the government that the allocation and distribution of scarce taxpayers' dollars will be untainted by political considerations. Prime Minister Golding, who is serious about making fundamental changes to the political landscape, must seize the golden opportunity and come out against the practice of constituency caretakers, which will make a mockery of wonderfully conceived social programmes such as the CDF.
It's time we end the divisive practices which gave birth to political garrisons and are major contributors to the ruination of Jamaica. Where the duly elected member of parliament plays the role of caregiver to the people in the constituency, and does so without favour or partisan political consideration, there need be no constituency caretaker.
hmorgan@cwjamaica.com
