Tweet
The selection process
Michael Burke
Thursday, May 17, 2007
In the democratic world, all political parties have a method of selecting its candidates for the positions that the public will be asked to vote for. The methods may vary from party to party, but it is still a selection process. It could be the arbitrary decision of the party chief or an internal democratic method by a majority of its members, perhaps within a constituency.
Most political parties have a system of veto by its leadership.
The leadership in this instance could be the leader alone, the top executive or central or national council. The main reason for the system of veto is to make sure that the candidate is not only popular with the party members, but with the voters.
In some instances there is need, especially in the Westminster system, to give a safe seat to a high-profile politician who is needed to be appointed a minister.
Inevitably, there is always fallout when someone is not selected and thought that he or she should have been. I was watching Direct on CVM TV last week and was amazed that the high-profile guests did not, or were unable to refer to history in the whole matter of the fallout.
Garfield Burford is a good youngster, but he needs to learn some details of political history since 1944. Despite the Gleaner headline story last week, a party would-be candidate who threatens to run as in independent is not the same as when some in the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party "split off" from that organisation to form the National Democratic Movement. This point was very well made by Geof Brown.
In every election since 1944 with the exception of 1976 where it was a straight two-party contest in all 60 seats, there have been fallouts. In the first election (1944) there was a Mr Baird who caused the PNP to put out an advertisement that he was not recognised by the party as its candidate in a St Ann constituency.
In 1955, 1959, and 1962, there was at least one PNP member of the House who, having not been chosen to run again, decided to run independently. In the case of 1955 and 1959, the PNP won anyway.
The same is true of the JLP. Many of the Farmers' Party candidates of 1955 were in fact former members of the JLP such as Arthur Williams, Snr, later a minister of government of the 1960s and father of Arthur Williams, Jnr.
Indeed, the elder Williams ran against Sir Alexander Bustamante himself in Southern Clarendon in the elections of 1955. And there have been many independents who were disappointed in the JLP selection process.
And by the way, most independent candidates who run just because they are angry that they did not win do not usually expect to win as independents.
Their plan is usually either to split the votes, the organisational effort or both, so that the party they left does not win the seat. The usual strategy is to force the party to return to the person and beg him or her to run so that the party can win the seat in the following election.So it is really a five-year plan.
Joan Williams, who appeared on the programme with the Rev Garnett Roper and Geof Brown, was more in a mood to heckle than to debate the issue. Both Roper and Brown acted with restraint and spoke intelligently, although neither referred to history as much as I would have desired. I hope that Garfield Burford will learn to be firm enough with people of whatever age who come on the programme and behave as if they want to take it over. One can be firm and still be a gentleman.
Nevertheless, one very good point made by Joan Williams is that the real reason that Vando Palmer was removed as PNP candidate for Central Manchester was that the polls showed that he was behind, and not because of any allegations of inappropriate behaviour in his domestic life.
Unfortunately, there have been many allegations on both sides of the political divide over the years of wife beating. But many have still remained as candidates because they were still likely to win and some did. But there was a time when at least one party in Jamaica cared less about winning and more about the quality of candidates. That was in the Norman Manley era, and at that time the PNP lost more elections than they won.
At that time many PNP supporters criticised their party president and founder as being too soft. But when Norman Manley's son Michael took over the reins of the PNP, that party started to get more practical and realistic about choosing candidates.
As a teenager I attended PNP meetings. At the public session of the PNP conferences between 1969 and 1972, it was said time and again that the chosen candidates would be those who stood the best chance of winning seats. My opinion is that both major political parties take the business of "winability" too far. I do not agree, although it does not happen often, for immoral, corrupt or violent people to be candidates just because they stand the best chance of winning seats. Nevertheless, it is in a few instances the reality.
Michael Burke
Thursday, May 17, 2007
In the democratic world, all political parties have a method of selecting its candidates for the positions that the public will be asked to vote for. The methods may vary from party to party, but it is still a selection process. It could be the arbitrary decision of the party chief or an internal democratic method by a majority of its members, perhaps within a constituency.
Most political parties have a system of veto by its leadership.
The leadership in this instance could be the leader alone, the top executive or central or national council. The main reason for the system of veto is to make sure that the candidate is not only popular with the party members, but with the voters.
In some instances there is need, especially in the Westminster system, to give a safe seat to a high-profile politician who is needed to be appointed a minister.
Inevitably, there is always fallout when someone is not selected and thought that he or she should have been. I was watching Direct on CVM TV last week and was amazed that the high-profile guests did not, or were unable to refer to history in the whole matter of the fallout.
Garfield Burford is a good youngster, but he needs to learn some details of political history since 1944. Despite the Gleaner headline story last week, a party would-be candidate who threatens to run as in independent is not the same as when some in the leadership of the Jamaica Labour Party "split off" from that organisation to form the National Democratic Movement. This point was very well made by Geof Brown.
In every election since 1944 with the exception of 1976 where it was a straight two-party contest in all 60 seats, there have been fallouts. In the first election (1944) there was a Mr Baird who caused the PNP to put out an advertisement that he was not recognised by the party as its candidate in a St Ann constituency.
In 1955, 1959, and 1962, there was at least one PNP member of the House who, having not been chosen to run again, decided to run independently. In the case of 1955 and 1959, the PNP won anyway.
The same is true of the JLP. Many of the Farmers' Party candidates of 1955 were in fact former members of the JLP such as Arthur Williams, Snr, later a minister of government of the 1960s and father of Arthur Williams, Jnr.
Indeed, the elder Williams ran against Sir Alexander Bustamante himself in Southern Clarendon in the elections of 1955. And there have been many independents who were disappointed in the JLP selection process.
And by the way, most independent candidates who run just because they are angry that they did not win do not usually expect to win as independents.
Their plan is usually either to split the votes, the organisational effort or both, so that the party they left does not win the seat. The usual strategy is to force the party to return to the person and beg him or her to run so that the party can win the seat in the following election.So it is really a five-year plan.
Joan Williams, who appeared on the programme with the Rev Garnett Roper and Geof Brown, was more in a mood to heckle than to debate the issue. Both Roper and Brown acted with restraint and spoke intelligently, although neither referred to history as much as I would have desired. I hope that Garfield Burford will learn to be firm enough with people of whatever age who come on the programme and behave as if they want to take it over. One can be firm and still be a gentleman.
Nevertheless, one very good point made by Joan Williams is that the real reason that Vando Palmer was removed as PNP candidate for Central Manchester was that the polls showed that he was behind, and not because of any allegations of inappropriate behaviour in his domestic life.
Unfortunately, there have been many allegations on both sides of the political divide over the years of wife beating. But many have still remained as candidates because they were still likely to win and some did. But there was a time when at least one party in Jamaica cared less about winning and more about the quality of candidates. That was in the Norman Manley era, and at that time the PNP lost more elections than they won.
At that time many PNP supporters criticised their party president and founder as being too soft. But when Norman Manley's son Michael took over the reins of the PNP, that party started to get more practical and realistic about choosing candidates.
As a teenager I attended PNP meetings. At the public session of the PNP conferences between 1969 and 1972, it was said time and again that the chosen candidates would be those who stood the best chance of winning seats. My opinion is that both major political parties take the business of "winability" too far. I do not agree, although it does not happen often, for immoral, corrupt or violent people to be candidates just because they stand the best chance of winning seats. Nevertheless, it is in a few instances the reality.