Vernon Daley

There is no virtue in being uncommitted. All that means is that someone else is making the decision for you.

When political analysts talk about the so-called uncommitted voters, they tend to treat them with what seems to be a kind of reverence. I don't know why.

There is a sense that these are the untainted people; the pure among us; those who have turned their backs on nasty politics; the independent thinkers. They are no such things.

As far as I'm concerned, those who number themselves among the uncommitted are people who are comfortably sitting on their brains while operating under the misguided notion that it's best not to get mixed up with politics.

Recently, I had a discussion with a friend who told me that he had no intention of voting in the next elections. He wasn't even registered, he said.

When I asked him why he told me that both parties were the same and therefore it wasn't worth the effort voting for one or the other. At the same time, he blasted those he described as the 'fool fool people' who go out every election to vote for the political parties without seeing an improvement in their circumstances.

However, it didn't strike him - not even when I pointed it out - that he had surrendered the decision-making on such a vital matter as the country's government to these same 'fool fool people'.

The fact is that some of these presumed foolish voters recognise their interest. We might turn up our noses at them for selling out their votes for a 'plate of curry goat' but at least they see what is in it for them.

There is no virtue in being uncommitted. All that means is that someone else is making the decision for you.

Operating under that broad heading is a way that many people have devised to free themselves of the duty to care. Opting out of the system only shows a lack of commitment to responsible citizenship.

POLITICAL IMBALANCE

Democratic governance derives its vitality from the temporary rule of a particular majority. The system depends on a reasonable periodic transfer of power from one group of competitors to the other to keep it in sync.

That transfer of power has not taken place in Jamaica for nearly two decades, and therefore, we have found ourselves in the middle of a political imbalance.

Colin Steer, this newspaper's associate editor for opinion touched on some of the consequences of this political one-sidedness in a column he wrote last year titled 'A political sense of entitlement'.

He argued that our parties, especially when elected on a wave of popularity, from time to time, get it into their heads that they have a right to rule anyway they wish and this leads them to become arrogant with power.

Successive People's National Party administrations since 1989 have perhaps manifested this attitude more than any other government. After all, the party has been a dominant force over the Opposition Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) for years. In fact, the current seat count in Parliament is the best the Opposition has managed in the last four elections.

There can be no sense in blaming the PNP for being elected for four straight terms. That's what they are there for - to win elections.

However, when the historians, economists and political scientists come to look over this period of political imbalance, I wonder whether they will conclude that the country was well served by it.

Vernon Daley is a journalist. Send comments to: vernon.daley@gmail.com