Robert Buddan, Contributor

The People's National Party (PNP) has always said it will call elections when the party tells the leader that it is ready, and when the EOJ announces that things are in place. These conditions have now been just about met (except for the law on open voting).

The PNP is enjoying a good lead in the Johnson, Anderson, and Stone polls. Since the likelihood of hurricanes or bad weather increases from September, many signs are pointing to an election in July or August.

Portia Simpson Miller will be seeking her first national mandate just over a year since becoming Prime Minister, and Bruce Golding will be doing the same two years after becoming leader of the Jamaica Labour Party. This is the first time (since 1944) that the two major parties are going into an election with two new leaders trying to win their first election.

Elections are often about the extent to which a country needs change or continuity. In 1955 and 1972, the PNP used 'Time for a change' among its campaign slogans. Current polls are showing that the largest bloc of opinion favouring the JLP is that it is time for change again.

In 1972, the JLP was faced with a generational/cultural backlash as the post-independence generation of the 1960s and 1970s had developed a world view very different from the one represented by the governing Status quo. Furthermore, Michael Manley was a popular figure who represented change and with whom that new generation identified. Manley, indeed, was a man for the times.

The JLP does not now have such conditions in its favour. Balanced against the bloc of opinion saying that it is time for change is another that says the PNP should be given more time to complete its projects, and that Portia Simpson Miller should be given a chance to have her own mandate. In addition, Portia Simpson Miller is the more popular leader of the two. The polls suggest that balance of forces between change and continuity is favouring the PNP.

At any rate, there is a difference in what 'change' is taken to mean. In 1972, change meant a change of leadership, policies, and political style. Change meant something dramatic, as the PNP administrations of the 1970s demonstrated. Today, voters might not want a change of Portia's people-centred style at all, and many believe that the policies that are bringing in investments should be given more time to bear fruit. This should mean that the PNP represents enough change (Portia) with continuity (policies) to get the benefit of both worlds.

Carl Stone had argued that the JLP represented stability to people and the PNP represented change. One of the problems faced by the PNP before was that 'change' was often equated with communism or ideas too far-reaching for Jamaican conservative values to accept. But the end of the old ideological differences between the parties now makes it possible for Jamaicans to understand change in a more rational perspective. For the PNP, change means transformation through modernisation.

Realigning election

Stone also distinguished between stabilising and realigning elections. Stabilising elections are those that maintain the existing electoral alliance. Realigning elections are those that show a significant change o between blocs of voters like social classes or age groups, and their party preferences. Realigning elections include those of 1972, 1980, and 1989 when a majority of the same social groups voted for one party, effecting a large margin of seat changes in Parliament. The elections since 1989 have been stabilising elections.

The issue for the JLP is how to realign voters between the parties. Before rejoining the JLP in 2002, Mr. Golding said that he had not noticed the kind of anger at the Government across the nation that was needed if the JLP were to win those elections. If the situation is the same today as the polls suggest, there might be no realigning election.

There would be two reasons for this. First, the polls show that the PNP's support is more stable because there is greater continuity of support between generations, age groups, and social classes. For instance, the PNP has more support from those who identify with the parties out of family tradition. It also has more support among the middle-aged and older voters who have a longer-term identification with the party and with voting. It has more support among the different categories of the middle class, as it has generally had.

The second reason seems to be related to expectations. Realigning elections are those that generate high expectations that fundamental change is necessary, and th party and its leader credibly represent this change. High expectations accompanied Bustamante's election in 1944, Michael Manley's election in 1972, Edward Seaga's election in 1980, and Manley's victory again in 1989.

Managing expectations

What has been different since is how the PNP has managed these expectations. The history of many countries has shown that high expectations that cannot be satisfied in fairly quick time lead to frustration, and depending on other things, can lead to violence that result in overthrow or political and economic collapse. Much of this seems to have happened in Africa and Latin America. It is not just the unsatisfied expectations of the poor that has mattered this has been the main focus. The unsatisfied expectations of the middle class and the rich also matter. Therefore, they can sponsor revolts too.

PNP leaders from Michael Manley, P.J. Patterson, and Portia Simpson Miller have moderated expectations out of recognition that if expectations run ahead of capacity to satisfy them, instability will result. The difference between Michael Manley of the 1970s and of 1989 to 1993 was that he moderated expectations generally and balanced the expectations across classes so as not to alienate any. Portia Simpson Miller is the most recent case in point. She has watched unrealistic expectations of her gradually level off to truer and saner proportions rather than succumb to populist rhetoric and spending to keep her popularity up to levels that policies cannot sustain.

There must be some balance between what people expect from governments and what governments can deliver. The PNP's approach has been to build the enabling capacity to deliver through modernisation. Modernisation of the public sector, local government, and of market and social institutions, and bringing realism to what can be achieved through stakeholder partnerships, are designed to manage this balance. It is in this sense that the focus on infrastructure and service delivery (human and institutional) should be understood. The lessons of the past show that once electoral promises are made elected governments have to match those promises if they are to maintain credibility.

The cost of moderating expectations is that there might be a lower voter turnout. The temptation parties then face is to appeal to these undecided or uninterested voters by stretching promises beyond the borders of credibility. It is a point that political systems reach every time there is an election. It is important for voters to be realistic about their expectations as well.

Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, Mona, UWI. Email: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm