With the general election over, the news and the public in general have eased off the political discussions. We no longer have op-eds, letters to the editors, and callers on talk shows speaking about the cut and thrust of politics and how it impacts people daily. Now, don’t get me wrong, political discussions continue, the family inheritance that seems to be Parliament and the familial intrigue as people enter politics on opposing sides have set tongues wagging, but it should not be lost on us that the style of discussion has changed.
A lot of this, I believe, is the reason behind our abysmal voter participation; people feel that once they cast their ballot, they are done, they have completed the democratic task, and no more participation is needed until 5 years down the line. The people in the media houses may not mean it, though some do, but how they act, as if what takes place in the general election is the be-all and end-all for democracy, plays a major role in people retreating, because if that is democracy they can live without it. If democracy means choosing between options I dislike and then leaving everything as it relates to running the country to them, why not leave participation to the diehards and people invested in the major parties?
But before we can even begin to look at voter apathy and lack of participation, we need to first clean up the voters’ list. According to the Electoral Commission of Jamaica, there are 2,077,800 people registered to vote; meanwhile, only 830,298 people voted, which gives us a turnout of 39.96 per cent, meaning up to 60 per cent of the registered voters didn’t participate. Something on the face of this does not add up. No one doubts that the voting number was 800,000, but people do doubt the accuracy of the over 2 million on the register.
The voters’ list is littered with the names of dead people, for example, and not people who died during 2025. The names of people who have been dead for at least 3 years are still on the voters’ list and are listed as non-voters, making up the 60 per cent. I know people who have migrated, one for over 5 years, who have no intention of ever coming back, yet their names still remain on the voters’ list. Clearly, the list is in need of a serious clean up to remove voters who should not be there. According to the People’s National Party (PNP), during a seminar which was attended by the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), over a quarter of a million people need to be removed from the list for reasons varying from death to no longer living in the constituency.
The voter’s ID is treated like a regular ID, and people, by and large, get it simply to have a government-issued ID. The rationale behind continuous registration makes sense; it makes sense to have a database of registered voters instead of crafting a new list every time the country gets ready for an election. From a management and time stance, it makes sense, but it needs tweaks if it is to be useful in its task, which also includes measuring actual turnout
However, even if we purge the list of the quarter to half a million names, turnout would still be dismal, below what was recorded in 2007. The reasons for voter apathy vary from voter to voter, but there seems to be a trend based on data picked up by polls done by media houses, along with anecdotal evidence. The most spoken about factor in this issue seems to be youth disengagement from politics. It is, quite frankly, understandable why the youth feel disillusioned and therefore disengage. Politicians and politics do not speak to their issues and needs: housing is off the table, jobs that pay well seem to be scarce though there are plenty of jobs, and education costs an arm and a leg. These are just the obvious issues affecting our youth. Then we lump in the wants such as safe and easy access to locations to host and attend parties and other events which are lacking and we see why the youth are checking out of politics.
The youth see what politicians have done to their parents and grandparents, aunts and uncles and want nothing to do with politics, and quite frankly, while I disagree with that thinking, it’s difficult to argue against when reality is what it is. Political parties and organizations must cater to the youth segment of the population and meet their wants and needs if we are to expect an increase in participation from them.
There is also a thick aura of disillusionment with our politics, and this can be laid squarely at the feet of the political parties. There is no real difference between the major parties; they are similar in ideology and even in the implementation of the ideology. I will be the first to admit that there are differences between the parties, but they are so minute and inconsequential as to not really matter in the grand scheme of things. A prime example is how they propose to handle the BPOs, which have been taking advantage of workers; one wants to talk sternly to them, and the other insists that the existing protocols work efficiently. Both are simply overseers of capital; there is no thinking of the people in either of these parties, and because people have realised that whoever they vote for between these two, they lose, they have recused themselves from the process.
That line of thinking, again, while understandable, fails when fully thought through, as disengagement means other people are making decisions that will deeply impact you. What needs to be done is to create parties and other organisations which represent the needs and wants that you have and act on them so that you have the ability to offer the people something different.
In all polls taken, one finds that people have a general distrust of politics and politicians, viewing them as corrupt and in it for themselves. This is a view I somewhat share. I don’t believe that all politicians are feeding at the trough, but I do believe that they turn a blind eye to those who do and that is just as bad, if not worse. The action of corruption, graft, enrichment while in office, jumping the queue, all are the norm with politicians here, and it is something that turns people off. Politicians must ensure that they steer clear of such activities, and where they can’t, they must be disciplined by their parties and brought to the relevant authorities to face justice.
Anti-corruption institutions must be strengthened and made transparent so people can know what work is going on in that front, and the courts should speed up the time taken to hear corruption trials brought against politicians.
A big reason for the disengagement and checking out is the fact that there are no parties that represent the wants and needs of the people. The simple answer is to form other parties, as others have done, and hash it out on the campaign trail. Unfortunately, it isn’t that simple, and there are major hurdles for new parties or prospective parties that hinder them from participating.
One big hindrance is that of campaign finance. It is clear that a campaign or even operating a party relies on money and not just the dues from members. As things stand now, the major parties gobble up donations from the private sector and interest groups and use the money to function, leaving third parties on the back foot.
If there were a central kitty which parties could draw from during the lull before elections or even during the campaign period, that would allow third parties to get more visibility through the media and other activities. As things stand now, only the entrenched major parties benefit, and that is to the detriment of the people, so I feel we must push for some campaign finance reform to benefit third parties and, therefore, provide the people more options.
Electoral reform would also go a long way to reviving the declining voter turnout. As things stand, people are given a binary choice: voting for a third party or any party that does not win in our first-past-the-post system is wasted. This does not truly represent the will of the electorate or the nation as a whole, who wish for more choices. Making someone feel like they are wasting their vote is a sure-fire way to turn people off from this type of democracy, and we are clearly reaping what we sow.
People may say that we don’t have strong third parties, but I feel that some changes, this chief among them, will spur people towards greater participation as they will feel not only that their vote matters, but that they will be able to vote for a party or person who represents their values. If we are worried that the bar to entry may be too high, we could lower it to 2 per cent, or even be more interesting and base it on percentages attained in constituencies. There are many interesting ways that proportional representation can be done; it just requires the will on the part of the lawmakers, and more importantly, the public, who must pressure the politicians to get something like this done.
Mandatory voting/NA on ballot
Some people have spoken about having mandatory voting to help in increasing the voter turnout. I am not a fan of mandatory voting, even if there are 100 options on the ballot, unless there is the option of ‘None of the Above’ or something like that. I feel the urge to implement mandatory voting is the easy way out and a way which does not meet the issues and demands which are being raised by the people when they refuse to vote. Forcing people to choose between options they dislike or disagree with is a recipe for disaster. We are currently experiencing one version of it, and having mandatory voting would see us saying to people not only that there are two viable parties you dislike, but that if you don’t vote, you’ll be fined or worse.
It can work and be viewed as palatable if it is seen as meeting the people halfway. Making it easier for third parties to register so people have options while also providing the option for ‘None of the Above’ on the ballot could work, but it would still have the feeling of force in something which ideally should be voluntary. This is an avenue I would caution against going down, at least until we do things like campaign finance reform, election reform, and how we otherwise view what democracy is.
The unspoken elephant in the room is just what our democracy is. The major political parties, their supporters, and the elites which back them are all in favour of the type of democracy we have now, a liberal representative democracy, the kind where participation of the public ends at the ballot box once every 5 years, with maybe a referendum thrown in for good measure. That, in my eyes, is not enough, and it seems, based on polling and anecdotal evidence, that the broader public wants more input in how we are run.
People want more direct and participatory democracy; they want to have a direct input in the things and laws that will impact them and which they will be governed by. There is plenty of low-hanging fruit within the existing system which could be used to increase these forms of democracy while we figure out how to implement a truly participatory and direct form of democracy. The Constituency Development Fund is one such low-hanging fruit that could be turned into direct democracy.
Each constituency is allocated a sum of money each year for the Member of Parliament (MP) to implement direct, local projects to the benefit of constituents. Instead of the current format, where the MP has the ability to direct how the funds are spent, why not make it so that MPs must consult with constituents to see what projects should be prioritised? This is already done by some MPs, but it needs to be the norm now, made into law, maybe, as opposed to being at the MP’s discretion.
What can also be done is to make local government a more direct format. When councillors are debating property taxes, what to do with them: streetlights, road repairs and other issues which are the remit of local government. The people should be consulted and their input and feedback should be implemented where possible. People already question the reasons for the local authorities’ existence, with MPs doing similar work, and this would not only differentiate them from the MP but also provide the people with a sense of ownership and responsibility for politics and governing.
It is not difficult to implement direct democracy; people who operate in unions, churches and other organizations know that it is possible to do this in complex organizations, and as seen with countries like Cuba, Venezuela, and even places like Switzerland, it is possible to do this on a national level. Direct democracy and participatory democracy don’t necessarily mean everyone participates in the town halls and community meetings; it means that everyone has the option to participate and actually be heard.
The county needs to look at how we practice this thing called democracy; it is obvious the people have found it wanting. With people stating openly that they would prefer a military dictatorship to this form of democracy, it should shock us. All it takes is one charismatic officer to see the country buck its trend of democratic governance. We should all be looking at how to increase voter participation, and the key areas mentioned need to be addressed before it is too late.
