Ken Jones, Contributor

Jones

'Member of Parliament' is the title of a well-paid job that requires no certified educational qualification, legislative experience or special skill. Theoccupier of the post is allowed a five-year contract that imposes no binding obligation to serve either the constituency or people who elected him/her. The job-holder may be censured or fired for not attending meetings of the House of Representatives, for committing some serious crime, or if he/she is adjudged to be insane, but dismissal for non-performance is not an option. The Member, however negligent, is accountable only if he/she appears before the constituents when the next election comes around.

The Representation of the People Act provides rules governing the conduct of electors and the election of Members of Parliament, but it is silent on the duties, responsibilities and obligations of those elected. Mr. Speaker may control the behaviour of Members within the precincts of Parliament. He cannot do so outside of the House. The political party responsible for his/her nomination may impose sanctions for neglect of duty; it may even withdraw support, but it cannot force him/her to give due service to the people. Nor can it interfere with membership in the House.

It seems to me that there ought to be rules and regulations to ensure that persons elected to represent constituencies do their jobs efficiently and conscientiously or face recall by the voters. Because our laws and enforcement policies are weak, some unworthy political representatives do sneak through the loopholes and end up serving no other interest but their own.

More than 200 years ago, the British statesman Edmund Burke set out an eloquent guideline when he told the House of Commons: "It ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own.? Still in this modern enlightened age the foolishness persists.

It would be good if all our representatives tried to emulate the philosophy of Edmund Burke. However, indications are that some present-day politicians care less about the people who chose them than they do about their own positions in the political parties of their choosing. The evidence is strong, the examples glaring.

For instance, Mr. Abe Dabdoub MP was elected by the people of North-East St. Catherine who expected him to be their representative in Parliament, bu he is paid to do so, he is nowhere to be seen in the constituency. Instead, he has publicly declared that with the approval and support of the ruling party he is taking up the cause of the people of Western Portland who already have Mr. Errol Ennis drawing pay for the same purpose. This in effect leaves the people of North-East St. Catherine paying taxes without getting the proper representation prescribed by the Constitution. They are not getting value for money because Mr. Dabdoub has chosen to spite former political associates considered to be less honourable than himself.

Proper representation

A similar situation exists in North-East St. Elizabeth where Mr. Roger Clarke was elected by the people. He is seen nightly on television speaking about the services he is rendering to the people of Central Westmoreland, who elected and are paying Dr. Karl Blythe to provide that representation. It would be helpful if the citizens of Central Westmoreland were getting double for their money, but Dr. Blythe seems to be doing very little and appears content to have Mr. Clarke play substitute for him. Meantime, the electors of North-East St. Elizabeth are deprived of proper representation, as Mr. Clarke is busy being Minister of Agriculture and caretaker of Mr. Blythe?s responsibilities.

Over in St. Ann, the North-West constituency has been without effective official representation since Miss Verna Parchment brushed the dust from her feet and parted company with the people who elected her, all because she had some differences with the political party that nominated her. She excuses her negligence on the grounds of some personal quarrel with members of her former party. Clearly, if she has separated from both those who nominated her and those who voted for her, she should resign and go about her private interests rather than draw from the public purse in exchange for warming a seat in Gordon House.

By some interpretations, Members of Parliament are supposed to be engaged in national affairs and not so much local constituency matters. This does not apply in Jamaica where every MP gets involved in the cares and concerns of his constituents. In any event, representatives of the people do have at least a moral obligation to be faithful to an election promise to serve diligently. When they fail to do so, we can all expect disillusionment and finally cynicism among the voters, new and old.

The conduct of these unsettled Members of Parliament, jumping from place to place and neglecting their constituencies, is of the type that is giving a bad name to politics and causing serious disenchantment among the electorate. Even those who actively try to work with the system and uphold the principles of democracy must be turned off by these thoughtless and selfish shenanigans. What is a conscious citizen to do in a constituency when there is a legitimate need and the parliamentary representative cannot be found? What is to be done, in these circumstances, by a civil society group wishing to put forward a question in parliament, present a petition, suggest amendments to laws or generally to have legislative remedy for something gone wrong?

switching allegiance

This matter of political representatives switching allegiance from one party to the other is not new. However, in Jamaica it has descended to a new low that affects the core of ethics and morality in politics. In former days when representatives differed with their parties they remained Independent until the next elections, so that their constituentscould make a decision. Now, these recent turncoats have not pitched their puppa-licks on account of differences on national issues concerning the people?s business. They have not the sensitivity to await a decent interval before changing their clothes in public. The situation is made worse when the chameleons abandon their constituencies in the process.