BASSETERRE, St. Kitts - Why did the results of the recent Jamaica elections catch so many by surprise? Why did these results, as one columnist states, leave “many people in a state of shock, disbelief and stupor?” The main reason is that they believed the pollsters.
The pollsters had predicted that the election would be a close one and had also predicted that the scales were tipping towards the then incumbent Jamaica Labour Party.
As it turned out, with PNP (People’s National Party) receiving 42 seats while the JLP (Jamaica Labour Party) captured only 21, this could hardly be called a close result. With PNP receiving 463 232 votes while the JLP received 405 234, there could be no mistake whom the voters favoured this time around.
This led Jamaican columnist, Franklin W. Knight to make this observation: “The principal observation here is that all pollsters, like economic forecasters, are not a reliable group and their presumed skill has a low reliability factor. At best their science, given its penchant for misleading, is nothing more than an acceptable form of pseudo-science.”
It is clear that pollsters will have a hard time defending their reputation and credibility. Already accusations are being made that pollsters have become the clients of governments who use them to make the voters decide on their "chances of benefiting by being on the 'winning side”’.
Pollsters are now being accused of injecting their biases into their findings. Mark Wignall, a Jamaican pollster admitted “the voters proved me horribly wrong” yet he went on to say that “the thinking people did not turn out to vote”.
A review of Jamaican columnists and commentators carrying out post mortems of the recent elections unearths some glaring parallels between St. Kitts and Jamaica.
Apparently the ruling Party’s campaign was based on attacking opposition members and trying to malign their characters rather than extolling their own achievements. Maybe they did this because they were so eager to distract attention from the “huge deficits in morality and integrity of their high profile candidates”. This is exactly the form of “old politics” that the young JLP leader had vowed to end.
The incumbent JLP government was further accused of not feeling the people’s pain. Blaming global conditions for the Party’s failure and preaching macro economics and long term progress (like new golf courses and marinas) do little to alleviate the present pain and suffering of hard times.
“The JLP betrayed the trust of the Jamaican people in the 'Dudus affair' and they underestimated the depth and the extent of the pain especially of the 70 deaths in the Tivoli Gardens affair. Then by defending the "rights"of the wrong people, they were accused of “taking corruption to new heights showing no humility, in a sense telling Jamaicans to put up or shut up”.
This disconnect was further exasperated with what was called a ‘one man syndrome’. The JLP expected that one man – the new ‘bringer of change’ young leader - would win the election and ignored the baggage the other Party members carried. In St. Kitts the parallel can be found in the ‘ten man in one syndrome’.
An extremely low voter turnout (less than 50%) revealed a disenchantment of the people with politics and politicians. The apathy among voters indicated that many, many voters had lost faith in both political parties, had seen corruption operating on both sides and had turned their backs on politics preferring to take an independent stance and fend for themselves.
Other issues touted that could have had a big effect on the outcome were:
• Attacks on the media by the ruling party which was regarded as akin to political suicide
• A decline in trade union organisation. The union base was crucial in producing voters on Election Day.
• Politicians were found to lie publicly especially over the “Dudas Affair” Said one commentator: “Politicians who lie publicly are usually punished at the polls.”
• “Holding the national election during the holiday season between Christmas and New Year bordered on the maliciously idiotic,” opined another commentator. This exposed another disconnect between the Party and the People and this was regarded as arrogance, and interpreted as disposing of the Peace of the Holy Season and replacing it with the violence of Politics.
But the long and short of it could have been the hardship the people felt which the politicians did not feel.
Said one irate commentator, “While the people starve, do you also buy houses, furniture, cars, defend a don and spend millions more finding the truth? Do you also make tens of thousands jobless? While spending their money do you also tell those contracted to receive wage increases to wait? Then you expect to win? Absurd!”
If these observations appear to be “writings on the wall” for St. Kitts Nevis, we must remember there are two key areas in which St. Kitts Nevis and Jamaica differ...
1. Overseas voters are not allowed to vote in Jamaica.
2. The Jamaica Electoral Commission is regarded by both parties as being an extremely independent body with zero interference from government entities.
In a true democracy a people are allowed to change their government when its accountability leaves a lot to be desired
