I am in full agreement with the conclusion that we need fewer members of parliament and constituencies not more; however, I will look at it from a different perspective.

The stipulated range of voters/population per constituency was articulated at a time when communication and travel was very difficult, particularly in the mountainous terrain which covers most of our country. With the improved access due to larger road networks, albeit poorly maintained, and the vastly improved telecommunication systems - Internet, mobile phones, etc - I believe it is now much easier for an MP to serve a larger constituency in terms of population and geography.

We need more mps

The United States, after which we fashion so much, has 500 House representatives covering a population of 300 million or slightly over 650,000 per constituency, supported by state and municipal governments. If we adopted that ratio, we would need only four or five MPs. This may seem ridiculously low, but what is clear 60 is already too much given the fact, as your editorial articulated, we have a substantial local government system.

There also needs to be a critical analysis of the role of the MP. Under the Westminster system, MPs represented their respective constituents' views as they (the MPs) undertake their legislative role on national issues. Rather than serving the interests of constituents in national issues, our MPs tend to serve the interest of political parties in local issues, usually to ensure the seat is maintained or taken over. Local issues ought to be addressed by councillors. I find it ridiculous whenever I hear an MP speaking about a constituency development plan, which has no link to a parish development plan or the national development plan. I have yet to see any constituency development plan implemented.

Professor Errol Miller, for whom I have tremendous respect, and his team on the Electoral Commission of Jamaica need seriously to rethink this one.

I am, etc.,

ROBERT WYNTER

robwyn@cwjamaica.com

Kingston 5