Tweet
Assessing the JLP manifesto
Rev Raulston Nembhard
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The JLP manifesto is an outstanding document not only for its lucidity but its simplicity. Leader of the Opposition Mr Bruce Golding articulated the issues in such a way that the ordinary man in the street could understand it. Even those who are diametrically opposed to anything JLP will grudgingly admit that the manifesto was well crafted and that it holds out much promise for a more prosperous Jamaica. The manifesto is a good example of what manifestos ought to be in style, length, substance and originality.
Of course, political manifestos cannot say everything that everyone wants to hear or see. They are at best statements of intention of what a political party intends to achieve once it assumes political office. A manifesto cannot spell out in detail what a particular intention is. To do so would lead to the creation of a cumbersome document that no one would wish to read. Once political office is assumed, it is left to the government to formulate policies to lay the framework for how the intention stated in the manifesto will be implemented. This would involve structure, cost and a timetable for implementation.
Those who are asking for more facts and explanation of the "promises" made in both the JLP and PNP manifestos are either being disingenuous or they do not understand the nature of political manifestos. Some would argue that there is no originality to what the JLP has proposed. In fact, some of what has been proposed is already being dismissed as empty promises which cannot be funded. These promises have been made before and nothing will be different if the JLP should win power.
In a country that has seen 18 years of bruising governance under the PNP, these are legitimate concerns to be entertained by a wary and battered electorate. The truth, however, is that the JLP has not held office for the past 18 years. It has not had an opportunity to test the veracity or credibility of the intentions in the manifesto. The party is being pressed to outline how it will fund the many promises it has made. It has indicated broad outlines of what could be done such as taking a strong and decisive stance against corruption and government waste. But the specifics are not there, and one wonders to what extent there could be specifics since we have not had transparent government and one does not really know the true state of the country's finances.
The constituency to which both manifestos should have the greatest appeal is the independent or undecided voter. All well-thinking Jamaicans who have had the benefit of an education should evaluate each manifesto dispassionately. They owe it to the country to do so. They should not allow their voices to be silenced by intimidation. It is very disconcerting to hear well-educated people, especially youngsters, say that they do not intend to vote for they don't want to have anything to do with "dirty politics".
To take a decision not to vote is a decision in itself. No one who has the ability to vote and does not do so should complain if they get a government they do not like. Frankly, there is not a great deal that can be done to change the minds of the committed diehards in both political parties. They are as committed to both parties as the pig in the bacon.
As I am on this, a word needs to be said about the behaviour of party supporters on the streets. As we embark on the last stretch of the election campaign, the diehards on both sides are in the height of their "ackee". Their time has arrived. When they are in political motorcades they behave as if they own the roads. I had the misfortune on nomination day to be caught up in the motorcades of Sally Porteous and Peter Bunting. The police did a commendable job preventing both sides from running into each other. With the fever pitch that one saw it was not difficult to imagine what might have ensued if they had run into each other.
What disturbed me was the way in which people were prevented from going about their daily business. One understands that these motorcades are part of the "enjoyment" that goes on at this time. But they should be conducted in such a way that they do not impede people in the normal course of their lives. The hostile and militant posture of these supporters convinced you to keep quiet and await their pleasure. They will allow you to pass on the narrow roads when they please. Reprimand such behaviour and you are likely to be set upon and harmed. We appeal to all the candidates to keep their supporters in check.
Ultimately, the strength and viability of any manifesto will be determined by the kind of governance that drives it. The JLP has indicated how it intends to govern. We will give them the benefit of the doubt for now, since we have not seen them in action for the past 18 years. But what of the PNP? In my next piece I will assess the likely governance that will drive the PNP manifesto.
stead6655@aol.com
Rev Raulston Nembhard
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
The JLP manifesto is an outstanding document not only for its lucidity but its simplicity. Leader of the Opposition Mr Bruce Golding articulated the issues in such a way that the ordinary man in the street could understand it. Even those who are diametrically opposed to anything JLP will grudgingly admit that the manifesto was well crafted and that it holds out much promise for a more prosperous Jamaica. The manifesto is a good example of what manifestos ought to be in style, length, substance and originality.
Of course, political manifestos cannot say everything that everyone wants to hear or see. They are at best statements of intention of what a political party intends to achieve once it assumes political office. A manifesto cannot spell out in detail what a particular intention is. To do so would lead to the creation of a cumbersome document that no one would wish to read. Once political office is assumed, it is left to the government to formulate policies to lay the framework for how the intention stated in the manifesto will be implemented. This would involve structure, cost and a timetable for implementation.
Those who are asking for more facts and explanation of the "promises" made in both the JLP and PNP manifestos are either being disingenuous or they do not understand the nature of political manifestos. Some would argue that there is no originality to what the JLP has proposed. In fact, some of what has been proposed is already being dismissed as empty promises which cannot be funded. These promises have been made before and nothing will be different if the JLP should win power.
In a country that has seen 18 years of bruising governance under the PNP, these are legitimate concerns to be entertained by a wary and battered electorate. The truth, however, is that the JLP has not held office for the past 18 years. It has not had an opportunity to test the veracity or credibility of the intentions in the manifesto. The party is being pressed to outline how it will fund the many promises it has made. It has indicated broad outlines of what could be done such as taking a strong and decisive stance against corruption and government waste. But the specifics are not there, and one wonders to what extent there could be specifics since we have not had transparent government and one does not really know the true state of the country's finances.
The constituency to which both manifestos should have the greatest appeal is the independent or undecided voter. All well-thinking Jamaicans who have had the benefit of an education should evaluate each manifesto dispassionately. They owe it to the country to do so. They should not allow their voices to be silenced by intimidation. It is very disconcerting to hear well-educated people, especially youngsters, say that they do not intend to vote for they don't want to have anything to do with "dirty politics".
To take a decision not to vote is a decision in itself. No one who has the ability to vote and does not do so should complain if they get a government they do not like. Frankly, there is not a great deal that can be done to change the minds of the committed diehards in both political parties. They are as committed to both parties as the pig in the bacon.
As I am on this, a word needs to be said about the behaviour of party supporters on the streets. As we embark on the last stretch of the election campaign, the diehards on both sides are in the height of their "ackee". Their time has arrived. When they are in political motorcades they behave as if they own the roads. I had the misfortune on nomination day to be caught up in the motorcades of Sally Porteous and Peter Bunting. The police did a commendable job preventing both sides from running into each other. With the fever pitch that one saw it was not difficult to imagine what might have ensued if they had run into each other.
What disturbed me was the way in which people were prevented from going about their daily business. One understands that these motorcades are part of the "enjoyment" that goes on at this time. But they should be conducted in such a way that they do not impede people in the normal course of their lives. The hostile and militant posture of these supporters convinced you to keep quiet and await their pleasure. They will allow you to pass on the narrow roads when they please. Reprimand such behaviour and you are likely to be set upon and harmed. We appeal to all the candidates to keep their supporters in check.
Ultimately, the strength and viability of any manifesto will be determined by the kind of governance that drives it. The JLP has indicated how it intends to govern. We will give them the benefit of the doubt for now, since we have not seen them in action for the past 18 years. But what of the PNP? In my next piece I will assess the likely governance that will drive the PNP manifesto.
stead6655@aol.com