Tweet
Votes on offer, votes for sale
By Marston Gordon
Jun 14, 2006, 01:55
…. and the politician said, sell me this day thy democratic right and the poor said, behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this democratic right do to me?
…. so the politician said, swear to me this day; and the poor sware unto him: and he sold his democratic right to the politician.
…. then the politician gave the poor bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus the poor despised his democratic right.
Universal adult suffrage
Universal adult suffrage consists of the granting of suffrage or the right to vote to all adults without distinction as to race, sex, belief or social status. The first movement to this end (manhood suffrage) began in the late 19th century in Britain with the aim of extending voting rights to all (adult) male regardless of class or race by removing the prerequisite of property ownership. By the early 20th century the movement evolved (female suffrage) into the fight for the removal of voting restrictions against women. However, it was not until 1893 that universal suffrage as it is now known came to be, making New Zealand the first country in the world to grant full voting rights to women. Although the movement started in England, British women were not granted suffrage until 1918 and American women (in all states) until 1920.
Disenfranchisement in America
The enfranchisement of women in America was opposed not just by men who questioned their capacity for sound reasoning, but also by different interest groups. For example, the liquor industry feared female support for prohibition and the textile industry worried about restrictions on child labour.
Surprisingly, while they clamoured for voting rights many women suffragists applauded the disfranchisement of the growing number of blacks and immigrants arguing that the enfranchisement of native white women would secure the social order whereas blacks and immigrants male voters endangered it. Despite this, black male suffrage became national in 1870 mainly because of political one-upmanship. The Republican-dominated Congress saw it as an opportunity to grab votes from their rival Democrats who controlled the southern states; for a while the Democrats forcibly kept blacks from the polls with alleged help from the Ku Klux Klan. Later, other tactics were utilized like poll taxes, literacy and property requirements to limit black and poor white political influence.
Universal suffrage in Jamaica
The period of the mid to late 1930s saw much labour agitation and the formation of Jamaica’s first trade union (Jamaica Workers and Tradesmen Union- 1936) and its first political party (Peoples National Party- 1938). At the inaugural meeting of the PNP on September 18, 1938 at the Ward Theatre Norman Manley declared that Universal Adult Suffrage was a fundamental aim of the party. However, it was Hon. J. A. G. Smith that moved the motion on December 13th, 1938 in the Legislative Council and the British Government acting on that motion made it a part of the new constitution.
The two tribes
Alexander Bustamante came to national prominence through his writings in defence of workers and the “anti-water meter protest” in 1935- 1936. His defining moment came following the dockworkers strike and his subsequent arrest with St. William Grant by the police on May 24, 1938 (the day after addressing workers at Parade). Four days later with the assistance of Busta’s cousin, Norman Manley they secured their release from the courts without charge. The root of a trade union was thus firmly planted and the following month was named the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU).
The Governor, Sir Arthur Richards became increasingly concerned about the power of the labour movement and in particular that of its leader, so with the co-operation of Norman Manley the Trade Union Advisory Council (TU(A)C) was established to promote the orderly development of trade unions. The Chairman of this new body was Noel Nethersole with none other than Manley its legal council, both men founders of the PNP only a year earlier. With its influence severely curtailed, the BITU soon pulled away from the TU(A)C and Bustamante also lost interest in his membership of the PNP.
The TU(A)C later became the National Workers Union (NWU).
The rift between Bustamante and Governor Richards continued until it came to a head in September 1940 and Bustamante was imprisoned for 17 months. During that time his cousin Manley (despite the earlier split in the TU(A)C) assisted with the running of the BITU along with other members of the PNP. On his release, Bustamante sought recognition as a political leader and on July 8, 1943 the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was launched in front of the Ward Theatre.
The 1944 Election
The first general election under suffrage was held on December 14, 1944 and for the first time the House of Representatives was comprised of members aligned to different political parties. Apart from the PNP, JLP and numerous independents, there was the Jamaica Democratic Party (JDP) who sought to represent the interest of employers.
For the 32 seats contested, the results were as follows:
PNP 5
JLP 22
Ind. 5
JDP 0
Things began to change thereafter and by the 1949 election one each of the victorious independents ran on PNP and JLP tickets, two did not offer themselves again and the fifth was reelected as an independent. A new independent also won, making a total of two. After the 1944 election the JDP never sought further direct representation from the people.
Political union
The strategy of the winning parties is evidently clear from the foregoing. Bustamante started his game by gaining the confidence of the masses through the labour movement in the 1930s and took them with him when he formed the JLP. Manley on the other-hand started with an intellectual grouping, stepped back and huddled his support through the trade union.
The JDP was bound to fail in seeking to represent a minority class, and even though propertied it was inconsequential where suffrage allowed for one adult one vote. My own view is that the JDP recognized pretty early that there was more than one way to bell a cat (no pun intended) and donating funds to political parties bought influence for them and votes for the parties.
Unbridled suffrage
The action of the US Republicans in 1870 speaks to the self- serving nature of politicians in garnering votes. In Jamaica we have had for example the voting age lowered from 21 to 18 to give political advantage to one party over the other.
Unbridled suffrage has done more against than for democracy and appears less suitable in under-developed countries. Before 1944 a Jamaican citizen had to pay 10 shilling worth of taxes to qualify to vote. In pre-independent America it was believed that a man’s economic independence earned him a role in the political process. He could then make independent political decisions and his economic stake in society would motivate him to act in his own interest and that of the public. Suffrage has allowed for things to go the wrong way; backway (pay electorate to vote), wrong side (political role yield economic benefit), upside down (decision guided by party affiliation) and crooked (tear down and destroy with nothing to loose).
A literacy criterion in some form might have served the country well. It would at least have provided some impetus for the politician to ensure a certain minimum educational standard of attainment. Instead we now have hoards of illiterates going to the polls barely able to recognize two colour (orange and green), two symbols (head and bell) and scratch two lines (X). Even the educated class largely votes in ignorance, they have little understanding of the operations and functions of government; Civics is no longer taught in school precisely for that reason.
In all of this we have managed to retain the residency requirement as a prerequisite to get on the voters list. That’s no accident or oversight; it facilitates the mobilization of electors and the control of garrison communities.
Funding of political parties
The funding of political parties from taxpayers money will not stop corruption, on the contrary it might very well increase it. Any allocation from taxes will never be enough and politicians will find creative ways to tap into the old source, with all its obligations and paybacks.
Because political donations are tax deductible (if not siphoned from cash), taxpayers are already contributing by the tax foregone.
No politician is going to consider instituting measures to make voting a privilege and not a commodity, that’s a job for civil society. For now, votes are on sale to the highest bidder (Bid reserved for political representatives only. It is illegal for the electorate to buy or sell votes amongst themselves).
http://www.paypereditor.com/artman/p...ticle_63.shtml
By Marston Gordon
Jun 14, 2006, 01:55
…. and the politician said, sell me this day thy democratic right and the poor said, behold, I am at the point to die: and what profit shall this democratic right do to me?
…. so the politician said, swear to me this day; and the poor sware unto him: and he sold his democratic right to the politician.
…. then the politician gave the poor bread and pottage of lentiles; and he did eat and drink, and rose up, and went his way: thus the poor despised his democratic right.
Universal adult suffrage
Universal adult suffrage consists of the granting of suffrage or the right to vote to all adults without distinction as to race, sex, belief or social status. The first movement to this end (manhood suffrage) began in the late 19th century in Britain with the aim of extending voting rights to all (adult) male regardless of class or race by removing the prerequisite of property ownership. By the early 20th century the movement evolved (female suffrage) into the fight for the removal of voting restrictions against women. However, it was not until 1893 that universal suffrage as it is now known came to be, making New Zealand the first country in the world to grant full voting rights to women. Although the movement started in England, British women were not granted suffrage until 1918 and American women (in all states) until 1920.
Disenfranchisement in America
The enfranchisement of women in America was opposed not just by men who questioned their capacity for sound reasoning, but also by different interest groups. For example, the liquor industry feared female support for prohibition and the textile industry worried about restrictions on child labour.
Surprisingly, while they clamoured for voting rights many women suffragists applauded the disfranchisement of the growing number of blacks and immigrants arguing that the enfranchisement of native white women would secure the social order whereas blacks and immigrants male voters endangered it. Despite this, black male suffrage became national in 1870 mainly because of political one-upmanship. The Republican-dominated Congress saw it as an opportunity to grab votes from their rival Democrats who controlled the southern states; for a while the Democrats forcibly kept blacks from the polls with alleged help from the Ku Klux Klan. Later, other tactics were utilized like poll taxes, literacy and property requirements to limit black and poor white political influence.
Universal suffrage in Jamaica
The period of the mid to late 1930s saw much labour agitation and the formation of Jamaica’s first trade union (Jamaica Workers and Tradesmen Union- 1936) and its first political party (Peoples National Party- 1938). At the inaugural meeting of the PNP on September 18, 1938 at the Ward Theatre Norman Manley declared that Universal Adult Suffrage was a fundamental aim of the party. However, it was Hon. J. A. G. Smith that moved the motion on December 13th, 1938 in the Legislative Council and the British Government acting on that motion made it a part of the new constitution.
The two tribes
Alexander Bustamante came to national prominence through his writings in defence of workers and the “anti-water meter protest” in 1935- 1936. His defining moment came following the dockworkers strike and his subsequent arrest with St. William Grant by the police on May 24, 1938 (the day after addressing workers at Parade). Four days later with the assistance of Busta’s cousin, Norman Manley they secured their release from the courts without charge. The root of a trade union was thus firmly planted and the following month was named the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union (BITU).
The Governor, Sir Arthur Richards became increasingly concerned about the power of the labour movement and in particular that of its leader, so with the co-operation of Norman Manley the Trade Union Advisory Council (TU(A)C) was established to promote the orderly development of trade unions. The Chairman of this new body was Noel Nethersole with none other than Manley its legal council, both men founders of the PNP only a year earlier. With its influence severely curtailed, the BITU soon pulled away from the TU(A)C and Bustamante also lost interest in his membership of the PNP.
The TU(A)C later became the National Workers Union (NWU).
The rift between Bustamante and Governor Richards continued until it came to a head in September 1940 and Bustamante was imprisoned for 17 months. During that time his cousin Manley (despite the earlier split in the TU(A)C) assisted with the running of the BITU along with other members of the PNP. On his release, Bustamante sought recognition as a political leader and on July 8, 1943 the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) was launched in front of the Ward Theatre.
The 1944 Election
The first general election under suffrage was held on December 14, 1944 and for the first time the House of Representatives was comprised of members aligned to different political parties. Apart from the PNP, JLP and numerous independents, there was the Jamaica Democratic Party (JDP) who sought to represent the interest of employers.
For the 32 seats contested, the results were as follows:
PNP 5
JLP 22
Ind. 5
JDP 0
Things began to change thereafter and by the 1949 election one each of the victorious independents ran on PNP and JLP tickets, two did not offer themselves again and the fifth was reelected as an independent. A new independent also won, making a total of two. After the 1944 election the JDP never sought further direct representation from the people.
Political union
The strategy of the winning parties is evidently clear from the foregoing. Bustamante started his game by gaining the confidence of the masses through the labour movement in the 1930s and took them with him when he formed the JLP. Manley on the other-hand started with an intellectual grouping, stepped back and huddled his support through the trade union.
The JDP was bound to fail in seeking to represent a minority class, and even though propertied it was inconsequential where suffrage allowed for one adult one vote. My own view is that the JDP recognized pretty early that there was more than one way to bell a cat (no pun intended) and donating funds to political parties bought influence for them and votes for the parties.
Unbridled suffrage
The action of the US Republicans in 1870 speaks to the self- serving nature of politicians in garnering votes. In Jamaica we have had for example the voting age lowered from 21 to 18 to give political advantage to one party over the other.
Unbridled suffrage has done more against than for democracy and appears less suitable in under-developed countries. Before 1944 a Jamaican citizen had to pay 10 shilling worth of taxes to qualify to vote. In pre-independent America it was believed that a man’s economic independence earned him a role in the political process. He could then make independent political decisions and his economic stake in society would motivate him to act in his own interest and that of the public. Suffrage has allowed for things to go the wrong way; backway (pay electorate to vote), wrong side (political role yield economic benefit), upside down (decision guided by party affiliation) and crooked (tear down and destroy with nothing to loose).
A literacy criterion in some form might have served the country well. It would at least have provided some impetus for the politician to ensure a certain minimum educational standard of attainment. Instead we now have hoards of illiterates going to the polls barely able to recognize two colour (orange and green), two symbols (head and bell) and scratch two lines (X). Even the educated class largely votes in ignorance, they have little understanding of the operations and functions of government; Civics is no longer taught in school precisely for that reason.
In all of this we have managed to retain the residency requirement as a prerequisite to get on the voters list. That’s no accident or oversight; it facilitates the mobilization of electors and the control of garrison communities.
Funding of political parties
The funding of political parties from taxpayers money will not stop corruption, on the contrary it might very well increase it. Any allocation from taxes will never be enough and politicians will find creative ways to tap into the old source, with all its obligations and paybacks.
Because political donations are tax deductible (if not siphoned from cash), taxpayers are already contributing by the tax foregone.
No politician is going to consider instituting measures to make voting a privilege and not a commodity, that’s a job for civil society. For now, votes are on sale to the highest bidder (Bid reserved for political representatives only. It is illegal for the electorate to buy or sell votes amongst themselves).
http://www.paypereditor.com/artman/p...ticle_63.shtml
Comment