Home
» Articles »
Jamaica's party system and PNP dominance
Robert
Buddan, Contributor
THE
elections of October 16 must be seen against a Jamaican tradition
of party competition in which the PNP has been the hardest
of the parties to beat.
The
PNP has established itself as the more dominant of the two
main parties or as the 'natural' party of Jamaican politics.
This is indicated in three ways. Over the 12 contested elections
from 1944 to 1997:
The
PNP has an average of 50 per cent of the popular votes to
the JLP's 45 per cent.
The PNP has been the more popular electoral party.
The PNP has won an average of 29 seats to the JLP's 20. The
PNP has been the more dominant parliamentary party.
The PNP has won seven elections to five won by the JLP.
The PNP has been the more regular governing party.
The
JLP won the first two elections, but the PNP has been the
party to gain more as the size of the electorate expanded,
levels of voting increased and the number of constituencies
grew.
This
must mean that the PNP has done better in attracting larger
numbers and newer generations of voters as they enter the
arena of voting.
More
to the point, as the society has modernised, the PNP has benefited
as the party perceived as the party of progressive modernisation
providing the social, physical and economic infrastructure
necessary for urbanisation and modernisation more than the
JLP has, and has benefited as the society inevitably modernises.
The
JLP is the party of conservative modernisation. This pattern
shows in the fact that the PNP is the stronger urban party.
It dominates consistently in Kingston and St. Andrew. At the
same time, it has extended its base in the rural parishes
as these parishes themselves are inexorably drawn into the
whirlpool of modernisation.
THE
JLP'S WEAKNESS
The
JLP is not just facing a party which the polls say is leading
as we come up to the 2002 elections but is facing a historical
pattern in which the PNP is more established.
The
competition between the parties should not be seen just in
terms of each election at any one time but against more fundamental
patterns of party-electoral relations over a longer period
of Jamaica's development.
Even
when the JLP has won elections, it has barely done so, and
owes its opportunities in Government to the First-Past-The-Post
(FPTP) electoral system which gives it more seats than votes
when it wins. The JLP won clearly in 1944 and won again in
1949, but in the latter year it actually received fewer votes
than the PNP, 42.7 per cent to the PNP's 43.5 per cent.
The
JLP won again in 1962 receiving 50 per cent of the votes to
the PNP's 49.6 per cent. The JLP won by only 8,359 votes.
In 1967, the JLP was returned but only with 50.7 per cent
to the PNP's 49.1 per cent. This time the JLP's margin was
just about 7,000 votes.
In
these three elections, the JLP won by seat margins of 4, 7
and 13 per cent. But all three elections were statistical
ties in terms of popular votes. These were not dominant wins
at all. In fact, the 1967 elections were very strange.
The
JLP won by an exaggerated seat margin of 13, yet it only won
7,000 more votes than the PNP did, while the number of electors
on the voters list was about 250,000 less than had been on
the 1962 list.
In
the end, the records show that the JLP had never won a contested
election with more than 51 per cent of the popular vote, except
in 1980. On the other hand, the PNP has been winning elections
with popular votes of between 55 per cent and 61 per cent
and has done so six times out of the seven elections it has
won.
This
history cannot be explained with reference to current personalities
and states of party unity, party strategies, issues, condition
of the society, intelligence and prejudices of voters, and
so on, alone.
These
are important of course, but they do not explain what happened
in the 1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s or 1980s. In fact, too much
focus on the current events of politics obscures those explanations
which are more deep-seated.
It
seems to me that the JLP has been overcome by the progressive
modernisation of society. The party had its roots in the late
plantation society when the Bustamante Industrial Trade Union
(BITU) and Bustamante were strong in the sugar and banana
parishes. The JLP was able to win enough seats in enough rural
parishes to win elections.
But
the society was changing all the time. Urbanisation and a
more factory and service-dominated economy along with a growing
urban population helped the PNP. During the period of industrialisation-by-invitation
of the 1950s, the PNP consistently increased its share of
the take of new voters faster than the JLP did.
The
PNP only lost narrowly in 1962 and 1967 when the JLP still
had enough rural support to win a majority of seats. Moreover,
the issues of federation and communism (Russian ships in Kingston
Harbour) helped to go against the PNP.
Then
the PNP came back to capture youth and urban voters as a result
of its socialist modernisation of the 1970s. But it went further
to establish itself in the rural parishes with its educational
policies, land reforms, housing development and more modern
social legislation. Ultimately, the poor state of the economy
and fears of communism gave the JLP an uncharacteristically
big victory in 1980 which it extended through the uncontested
elections of 1983.
THE
PNP'S STRENGTH
Since
the 1990s, the PNP has moved further ahead of the JLP, first
through the modernisation of the party's thinking and organisation,
and then by its policies of physical and economic modernisation.
Cellular
phones, highways and roads, cable and Internet, motor cars
and so on, might be dismissed as cheap election-winning, feel-good
show pieces. But they signal something more fundamental.
They
allow people to keep up with standards around the world which
they can now more easily compare and enjoy privileged consumer
goods associated with middle- class lifestyles from which
they were traditionally excluded. They, like the traditional
middle class, can now have the latest in consumer goods.
More
importantly, access to these items allow people to avail themselves
of more opportunities. They can be contacted on their phones
more easily for jobs; their places of business are more quickly
accessible because the roads are better and go further; they
can access others more readily because they have their own
cars and better public transportation; they can advertise
and do business more widely through the Internet; they can
do business internationally because foreign exchange is more
easily available.
Modernisation
reduces the obstacles posed by time and space. This is fundamental
to the economics of people's lives. It brings opportunities
closer to people who can access them faster. We would be underestimating
the value of these items of modernisation if we see them purely
as political gimmicks.
One
of the questions that has emerged (in Latin America) in the
1990s has been this: Why is it that neo-liberalism has limited
what the state can do for poor people while the market has
widened the gap between rich and poor, and yet voters still
return liberal parties to government?
Although
there is no simple answer, one suggestion has been that liberalisation
(of consumer and producer markets and state services) has
made a wider array of goods and services (previously limited
to the middle class), available to more people and in the
process, made them feel that they can do more for themselves.
The
PNP seems to have hit upon a new developmental strategy where
growth versus distribution is no longer the issue but where
the building of the societal infrastructure for both growth
and distribution is; and where that infrastructure gives people
the tools and means to grow and benefit for themselves without
over-dependence on either the state or the markets of the
privileged classes.
This
matter needs more looking into. But both the PNP and the JLP
need to explore some of the more fundamental reasons why voters
feel the way they do about their society and parties if they
are to become or remain relevant.
Win
or lose, both parties should spend the next few years studying
the way the society is changing, how values are changing with
it, and how these changes are expressing themselves in voting
patterns and voting choices.
About this writer
Robert Buddan is a lecturer in the Department of Government,
Mona, UWI. E- mail: rbuddan@uwimona.edu.jm
|