Parish leaders should debate

IT IS almost certain that the long-postponed – by more than three years – local government elections will be held next month. Both the Jamaica Labour Party, which controls the national government and the majority of the municipal councils, and the opposition People’s National Party are in full campaign mode. And there is no sign that Prime Minister Andrew Holness will spring an 11th -hour, fifth delay of the vote, which are due to be held by February 28.

Indeed, it would be politically awkward and credibility-sapping if the administration, barring the most consequential of crises, were to delay further, given Mr Holness’ pledge last August that the elections would proceed unless there was“an exogenous shock or weather event”.

“... As it is now, it is the intention of the Government to fulfil its constitutional duties,” he said.

This newspaper supports the prime minister’s declared commitment to his constitutional obligations. We nonetheless hope that the elections for the 13 parish councils, and that for the city municipality of Portmore, represent, and deliver, more than a box-ticking exercise.

They should mean a deeper engagement of Jamaica’s democracy and give meaning to the concept of subsidiarity, upon which the local government system rests – taking decision-making closer to the people who the decisions affect.

Unfortunately, the campaign, thus far, has the tone of one for the national Parliament.

The Opposition is attempting to make the election a referendum on the administration’s national stewardship, hoping that if it performs well it will gain momentum for the parliamentary vote due in 20 months. The administration, meanwhile, is busily defending its track record and making big promises. The issues that affect local communities have, by and large, become secondary.

RESET

Which is why The Gleaner insists on a reset, and calls on the Jamaica Debates Commission (JDC) to urgently help with this mission.

The commission organises and hosts debates between the parties. These exchanges are usually during parliamentary elections, rather than for municipal councils.

In that regard, the JDC would significantly expand its footprint, as well as do a great service to citizens, if it could coax the parties to a series of debates between contenders for leadership of the councils on how they intend to improve services, and their solutions for other problems faced by parishes and local communities. They should also be challenged to make the corporations more transparent and accountable, areas in which they have been wanting.

The anecdotal evidence suggests strongly that Jamaicans, for myriad reasons, have little confidence in the local government system. Two inter-related ones loom large.

First, the leadership and members of the parish councils lack ambition. They offer little by way of overarching vision for the municipalities and communities which they serve.

This failure is, in part, a consequence of the other factor. As we previously noted, municipal councillors generally function as vassals to the parliamentarians for the constituencies in which their divisions fall, if they are of the same party. Which is mostly the case.

This subservience is not totally without merit. Members of parliament (MPs) have direct access to some financial resources, via the Constituency Development Fund, which gives him leverage over councillors.

Moreover, party structures reinforce the notion of local government councillors as subordinates, or liegemen, to MPs. Rarely do the parties select local government candidates who perceive themselves beyond these roles, or display big ideas and big visions for the communities they represent. That, really, is an abrogation of their obligations and responsibilities.

Yet, the municipal councils are responsible for the delivery of important services to communities, including the management of markets, some public spaces, aspects of public health, and the maintenance of designated roads and drains. These are all issues that impact the lives of people who reside within jurisdictions of the municipal corporations.

Importantly, too, they have major regulatory responsibilities for development, including issuing and monitoring permits for construction. This is a job that they often do not do well; or do so badly as to cause questions to be raised of whether the problem transcends issues of competence.

SYSTEM TO WORK

If the parties are serious about their declared commitment to local government, they should want the system to work. They ensure this, first, by choosing competent people as candidates, and liberating them to get on with their jobs in the fashion contemplated by the Local Governance Act – with accountability and transparency.

For instance, the law expects the municipal authorities to regularly engage with community stakeholders, including having periodic sessions with parish development committees. They can also appoint non-elected members to their standing committees – although these selectees do not have votes. Additionally, non-elected persons are required to be the chairmen of the corporations ’public accounts committees, which have oversight for accountability and transparency standards and the annual review of their financial operations.

Our sense, though, is that insofar as these mechanisms are engaged, it is mostly perfunctorily – and not with purpose.

These issues, however, should be on the agenda for next month’s elections, addressed not only on the hustings, but in formal debates between candidates.

The opinions on this page, except for The Editorial, do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Gleaner.