Fifteen Years Later, Reflecting on Manley’s Yardsticks for Judging Democracy’s Progress in Jamaica

by Cyrina Maxwell Papine High School, St Andrew, Jamaica

If the comparison could be made – unwieldy and as awkward as it may be – of Jamaica’s system of political governance as a musical instrument, it could be safely said that it remains far from finely tuned. After forty-five years of Independence, and the institution of democracy as the primary expression of the political will of its people, the instrument of democratic governance in Jamaica produces music, but with warbling notes and off-key moments.

Former Prime Minister Michael Manley’s statements on democracy in March 1992, contained in the question, succinctly capture this dilemma but, more importantly, obliquely implicates the culprits. He said:
 
“Democracy means far more than the right to vote every five years. It means the right to participate in every aspect of national and community life. The people must believe that they can take part.”

When he made these statements, the off-key notes were reverberating loudly. Today, they still do.

The concerns encapsulated in his statements then still echo with striking reverberative power, fifteen years later. Notwithstanding the passage of time, Jamaica still struggles to find perfect expression in the dreams of our democratic Fathers and therefore former Prime Minister Michael Manley’s statements still retain unqualified merits.

To fully appreciate and evaluate the merits of Manley’s statements in the context of 2007 Jamaica, it becomes necessary to isolate and explicate each element of it. Manley begins by affirming and extending the traditional definition of democracy. The Oxford English Dictionary defines democracy as
“[g]overnment by the people; that form of government in which the sovereign power resides in the people as a whole, and is exercised either directly by them (as in the small republics of antiquity) or by officers elected by them.”
Generally speaking, the will of the people is determined by voters going to the polls every five years. Manley, however, argues that democracy means far more than the right to vote every five years. Significantly, he recognised that if “voting every five years” was used as the yardstick for judging the progress and success of democracy in Jamaica, then Jamaica’s democracy would remain fundamentally limited and the debate about democracy in Jamaica would gain very little traction. Instead, Michael Manley, in this most auspicious and solemn of his exit speeches, decided to devote his speech to proffering more viable yardsticks.

Two-tiered framework

He sets out a two-tiered framework that he uses to further elaborate the notion of democracy as it should be expressed in the context of Jamaica. The first limb of his elaboration focuses on the right to participate in every aspect of national and community life. His affirmation of this self-evident right was merely given for emphasis and he expressedly notes the distinction between national and community life.

Secondly, he highlights the element of belief as a key motivator in the political behaviour of people and its inescapable function in fuelling the political consciousness of a community.

A cursory review of Manley’s statements would yield the interpretation that he is merely repeating what he thought to be self-evident aspects of democracy. However, a more in-depth review reveals that these very elements remain most elusive in Jamaica’s socio-political structure.

Thus, the right to participate at both the national and community levels of government remains a crucial aspect of Jamaica’s pursuit of its truest form of political expression. There are many contradictions as it relates to this. At one level, this is evident in a split in how persons approach democratic representation at various levels. Sadly, many Jamaicans in 2007 feel that while they may have the option of participating in the democratic processes within their own communities they are restrained from doing so at the national level. The path to national political participation is often confined to party elites, and sometimes their only option is to serve as delegates at national democratic party events.

Popular participation

Former Prime Minister Manley’s statement here also emphasises the need to continually affirm and find expression for the right of Jamaicans to participate at every level of democratic governance: locally and nationally. While there is often an emphasis on national elections, there is often a lack of corresponding emphasis on local government elections. The result is that people are sometimes disenfranchised through what may be termed “information blackouts”. In these situations, people lose their rights of political determination because certain information relating to the affairs of their local governance are not disseminated to them in a timely or responsible fashion for them to make decisions about them. Moreover, because local community political events often occur below the radar of national scrutiny, local political operatives sometimes seek to take advantage of systemic weaknesses at the expense of the democratic rights of the local community.

The second limb of Manley’s elaboration focuses on the critical element of belief among voters that they can take part in the process of participatory democracy. For the musical instrument that is Jamaica’s system of participatory democracy to issue finely tuned music at its fullest and most expansive range, the voters’ belief in their own enfranchisement is vitally important to the future of Jamaica’s participatory democratic project. Sadly again, in 1992 Jamaica – when Prime Minister Manley made these statements -- and in 2007 Jamaica, political polarisation pits Jamaica into two political camps. Camps refer to each other as “the PNP dem” or “the JLP dem” and voters become ensnared in this unhappy dynamic. The sharp political divide accepts no open-minded debate about issues or an acknowledgement that persons may change their political votes based on a consideration of the issues. Political persuasion is reduced to the community or family into which a voter is born.

In some communities, generally those where “dons” and strongmen hold sway, residents are forced to conform to the political persuasion of their community overlords and any attempt to digress from the dictated political path brings swift and brutal punishment. The truth is, in many of these communities, people still do not believe they have a choice in whom they can vote for. In Jamaica’s recently held elections on September 3, there were numerous reports by voters of intimidation and violence . A frightening trend is that as crime spreads so too does voter intimidation and violence; and many communities that were previously relatively free of crime have begun reporting that as “dons” crop up, there have also been increasing instances of voter intimidation in their communities.

Element of belief

But the element of “belief” also captures the feeling of enfranchisement that comes from a voter’s confidence in the viability and the integrity of his country’s system of participatory democracy. If he or she believes that every vote is not counted because of systemic failures in the Electoral Office of Jamaica’s (EOJ’s) ability to secure and count ballots or because of corruption and the so-called “stuffing of ballots” then voter belief is compromised. This belief is crucial to ensure the instrumental workings of Jamaica’s system of participatory democracy continue producing delightful sounds of melody and music. The consequences of a loss in voter belief that they can take part in their system of participatory democracy will be voter apathy, low voter turn-out and an increasing disillusionment in the progress of Jamaica’s system of participatory democracy.

In sum, former Prime Minister Michael Manley’s reformulation of the traditional definition of democracy in the context of Jamaica epitomises the participatory nature of Jamaica’s democratic project. His identification of the culprits that are capable of compromising this vision – limiting the right to participate either at the national or community level and the lack of belief that they can take part – still has salience today. Eradicating these threats remains key to realising the full flowering of Manley’s vision of participatory democracy.