Tamara King, Staff ReporterDEPENDING ON which report one believes, last year's General Election was free and fair and free from fear or was one of the bloodiest ever.
The Carter Center and the United Kingdom-based human rights organisation, Amnesty International, have issued completely different reports on last October's General Election, in which the People's National Party swept to a fourth term.
The Carter Center, a United States-based non-profit organisation, is highly respected worldwide for its role as an election observer. A report from the Center two days after the election stated: "We commend the Jamaican voters for participating peacefully in an election day that was generally free of the violence marring it in elections prior to 1997. The Jamaican people made a clear call for change in the culture of violence, and the candidates have responded."
CARTER CENTER'S PRAISE
The organisation, which was founded by former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, is said to be guided by a fundamental commitment to human rights which, in a sense, is similar to Amnesty International. Yet, in its extensive report published after the elections, the Carter Center had many praises for the island's efforts toward a free and fair election.
"The election preparations showed significant advances over the past. In particular, the
state-of-the-art voters' registry allowed all those who desired to vote the best opportunity to do so in Jamaica's recent history. The consultative process for verifying the voters' list, determining the location of polling stations, and vetting names of an entirely new pollworker force contributed to the confidence in this electoral process."
The final report from the Carter Center, which sources say will not stray far from the preliminary document, is expected to be released later this week.
However, Amnesty International was not as generous in its 2003 report.
"In the election of October 16 the People's National Party was returned to power. The election was accompanied by an increase in politically motivated violence, with at least 60 people killed in the days leading to the election."
The report went on to state that "supporters of both the main political parties reportedly attacked each other's events".
SPARKING RESENTMENT
This is the second report issued by the rights group since the start of the year which has created a stir and has sparked resentment from sections of the Government. While both Jamaica's image and the organisation's credibility remain at stake, the Political Ombudsman, Bishop Herro Blair, demanded that the report be withdrawn on the basis that the figure representing the number of persons killed was inaccurate.
However, Amnesty Inter-national is standing by the report. It noted in a press release that "the statement by Amnesty International clearly does not claim that all 60 of those who died were killed in political violence. If the organisation believed this it would have stated it overtly. That 60 people were murdered during the election period is not disputed (many reports have the figure higher)."
The organisation continued its defence. "What some have described as a 'glaring inaccuracy' is simply different interpretations of a sentence."
Bishop Blair said of the two reports, "One was clearly objective and one was based on plagiarism. I just assume that they read the papers and see where persons had died and jumped to conclusion that the deaths were politically motivated."
He cautioned the human rights group that their findings cannot be based on assumption but must be based on facts.
