SO, THERE is to be no new election for the post of president of the JAS in the wake of serious allegations of over-voting in the recent exercise. The Society's CEO Mr. Robert Reid seemed to have convinced a majority of Board members that the process had not been flawed as was asserted.
But whether or not there had been malpractice might be of little real importance given the reality of the position of the Society. Of greater importance is what a president, elected fairly or not, can do or is prepared to do to restore some relevance to the century-old farmers' organisation.
For beyond wrangling about elections almost every year it is less than clear where the Society is headed and what it envisages as its role in either the present or the future. It matters very little who is elected, if it has no programme or vision, its claim for continued existence is at best suspect.
We do not wish to play off one farming organisation against another but we are constrained to make a comparison between the JAS and the Jamaica Livestock Association which has become a viable commercial enterprise which is even traded on the stock market, and the JAS which despite its vast real estate holdings has never managed to become a viable business.
The JAS should look ominously on the fact that although electoral malpractice was strongly alleged there was little public reaction. This suggests to us that the public has lost interest, bored with years of wrangling about elections and little more.
In all this the Government has an obligation to explain to the country exactly what its subvention is to the JAS, what is the quid pro quo and how it is being met or not met.
The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner.
