The bigger issue raised by same-day vote

THE LATEST discussion on the possibility of holding parliamentary and municipal elections on the same day has largely centred on the potential for saving a lot of money – J$750 million, at least by the estimates of the electoral office. That’s cash the Government could put to other use. And the circumstances align to make the single polling date feasible for the coming elections.

The debate, however, puts back on the agenda the larger issue, which hasn’t, so far, been addressed: the matter of a fixed date for parliamentary elections, which this newspaper supports, but which requires significant constitutional change and ratification by voters. In other words, there would have to be a referendum.

Under Jamaica’s Constitution, the life of Parliament is for five years from the date of the previous election, which makes one due next February, although, under certain circumstances, the authorities can extend the time for up to three months. However, the prime minister can, at any time during the term, have the governor general dissolve Parliament and call an early election. In all likelihood, had COVID-19 not interfered with his political calculus, Andrew Holness would have had Jamaicans at the polls this month, or very soon thereafter. The delay is what now makes joint elections possible.

Hitherto, local government elections were supposed to be held every three years. Ministers, however, had the power to delay them and then have their actions rubber-stamped by Parliament. Which happened often.

But under the Local Governance Act of 2016, the term of the municipal authorities was extended to four years, with the date for their elections essentially fixed. The poll, as set out in paragraph 4(7) of the Eighth Schedule of the Representation of the People Act, has to be held within “90 days, commencing on the day of the fourth anniversary of the date on which the most recent general (local government) election has been held under this paragraph”. The previous election was held on November 28, 2016.

ONE-OFF EVENT

If Prime Minister Holness was inclined to delay the vote for the national legislature, both elections could conceivably be held together, without affecting the constitutional timeline for the parliamentary vote – and with the substantial savings. The Government has budgeted J$2.4 billion for the two elections. However, Glasspole Brown, the director of elections, told Parliament’s Public Administration and Appropriations Committee that his office estimates that “if we are able to hold both elections together, the country could save nearly three-quarters of a billion dollars”.

That, though, without a fixed election date for the House, would possibly be a one-off event, unless circumstances similarly align in the future. With the power to call elections when they will, prime ministers are inclined to do so at the period they believe to be the most politically opportune.

Indeed, the issue of potential detriment to democracy of this sweeping prime ministerial power to call elections at a whim, and whether it should be removed from them, has, for a quarter of a century, been sporadically debated in Jamaica. It was most recently raised by this newspaper in February and early March, at Ruddy Spencer’s resignation from Parliament, triggering a by-election in his South East Clarendon constituency, to, in part, settle a succession quarrel in the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP). The Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) boycotted that vote, arguing that it was too close a general election.

If there was a national consensus on the need for a fixed election date, giving effect would require an amendment to Section 64(1) of the Constitution that allows the governor general to, “at time”, either prorogue or dissolve Parliament. That would be easy enough, needing no special measures. However, in exercising this power, the governor general is required by Section 64(5) to act “in accordance with the advice of the prime minister”. That clause is deeply entrenched, which means that the bill would have to lay on the table of the House for three months before being debated, and a further three months, after the debate, before being voted on. After passage by the House and the Senate, the bill would then be subjected to a referendum.

Apart from the challenge posed by Section 64 of the Constitution, moving to a fixed date election would also require resolving what is to be done during crises that may make an early vote necessary, or when a prime minister loses a confidence vote in his leadership. With regard to the latter, he can now, under Section 71(3) of the Constitution, ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament, if he acts within three days of the parliamentary vote.

The economics of holding the national and municipal elections in a single go makes that idea attractive, while the prospect of enhancing democracy lends itself to a fixed date for the parliamentary poll. The JLP and the PNP should make their positions on both issues clear, including bringing them to the centre of their campaigns for the coming general election with the intention of the new government acting on them as a matter of urgency.