Imani Tafari-Ama | Between orange and green, what does democracy mean?

It would be laughable if it were not so tragic, to contemplate the extent to which Jamaica has been divided and conquered by the illusion of democracy. The still-colonial system that governs partisan politics in Jamaica, makes no pretence that it is still umbilically tied to Britain.

The dreadful joke that is on our Blind-as-Bartimeus nation hits you with a bang when you drive through the countryside these days. It is just pitiful to see the orange and green strips of cloth, demarcating territory for the principal political parties.

The partisan territory markers can be seen streaming from trees as you speed by, colour-coding fences and even occupying light posts on opposite sides of the same street. The Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and People’s National Party (PNP) are in full campaign mode. Although there was great expectation earlier this year that the election would take place in September, some legal hocus-pocus was introduced by the attorney general, suggesting that the date could be in December. Either way then, two or six months to go.

While the government holds the ace card of setting the date for calling elections, the dubious advantage of this manipulation of the timing of the polls just gives the public more opportunity for deepening already profound cynicism. Whether there is a two-month or six-month window, it is still woefully lax strategy that the principal contenders have, so far, not seen it fit to collate their plans for forming the next incarnation of government into publicly accessible manifestos.

What are the ideological hooks that either or both parties are hanging their election coats on? What distinguishes one side from the other? What are people really voting for? Apart from die-hard party supporters, what attracts the public to either side? What are the ideas that young people who are going to be voting for the first time being persuaded by?

I decided to check in with my daughter who is my barometer for what is youth-trending. “What would make you vote for PNP or JLP?” She gave me an emoji face that I interpreted to mean, “nothing, duh!”

“Seriously,” I pushed, “what is special about either party?”

“Nothing, she insisted. They are both the same no-thing.”

INDICTMENT

That is an indictment on the prevailing model of political operation, on the eve of 63 years of Independence. Even more tragic, is the trumping of the Emancipation agenda by what turns out to be the charade of Independence. Perhaps we need to do an intergenerational review of what constitutes the benefits to which each citizen is entitled. in the context of a sovereign state, holding elections.

In terms of planning, what are the governance benchmarks that the principal parties should achieve to be deemed (by the electorate) to have succeeded or failed? Can officials who fail, (by an agreed-to passmark), to produce indicators of success, be disqualified from participating in elections? Who determines all this? (I am laughing out loud). King Charles, as in the Vybz Kartel case?

Of course, the notion of sovereignty is the crux of the discontent. The fact that the governor general, representing King Charles, will be the one to dissolve the Parliament whenever the election date is decided, reminds us, in no uncertain terms, who holds the handle of our political machinery. The fact that the British Crown owns our governance, legislative apparatus and land (to this day!) leaves us holding the blade of self-determination.

Nowadays, as the electioneering streamers shout, we are busy perfecting the divide and rule debacle, that has torn apart our little island for decades. Those streamers tell me that there is no intention on the part of the principal contenders to yield to the greater good that unity would bring.

The blade of the compelling divide-to-rule system of voting reminds us that Britain is still the head of state at the end of the day. As the constitutional reform impetus seems to have run out of steam, the referendum on republic status has been relegated to a non-issue category, for now. The election impetus has launched us into a premature silly season.

The existing political framework is insufficiently elastic to allow us to adopt Marcus Garvey’s mandate to “emancipate yourselves from mental slavery”. In an epic musical essay, Bob Marley amplified this urgent message as a mechanism for subverting the stranglehold of the colonial mindset.

NOTORIOUS RESISTANCE

Given the notorious resistance to an emancipation approach to governance, it is tempting to ask, what are the mechanisms that need to be established for politicians to be obliged to subscribe to freeing their minds? How can we ensure that our representatives stop swearing allegiance to serving the same colonisers responsible for our enduring collective trauma of dispossession? What is it going to take for us to achieve Full Free?

These rhetorical questions are the last bastions of resistance, considering the weight of the power wielded by governments over we the people. Once the votes are counted, that seems to be the end of people participation. This architecture of democracy actually makes those representatives who sit in Parliament complicit with the very colonial complications that the Emancipation agenda was meant to undermine.

The divisive Independence model thus serves to hijack the gains of our ancestors, with no political will in sight to engage in the project to “free our minds”. This phrase is the antidote for the condition of mental slavery. However, this obstacle remains in place because it is not treated as a pre-condition for deciding who should “win”.

Voters are unapologetically dumbed-down if they only follow the streamers and mark X in a box on election day. Do voters ever consider that, from an educator’s perspective, X is a symbol of something wrong? The irony is also mired in the failure of successive political administrations to spread the benefits of any political success across the board, in the interest of achieving sustainable development, for all.

How many voters have crossed the rubric from casting their ballot to being satisfied with their party’s performance, five years later? Kudos. Then it should be easy to replicate this happiness across differences caused by party, class, gender, rural, urban, ability, age or other markers of difference, right?

Okay. Let us start with a working definition of justice, which levels the playfield of access to resources. Then we can take participatory politics from there.

Imani Tafari-Ama, PhD, is a Pan-African advocate and gender and development specialist. Send feedback to i.tafariama@gmail.com and columns@gleanerjm.com.