The realities of elections
Cascabel 73 writes: There are a few realities that escape voters in our beloved islands. One: No candidate, even if they become a minister, can “change” anything by simply dictating it. In reality, ministers are very limited in what they can do. Even the bills (future laws) they bring are put together by lawyers who do that for a living. Ideally, we, the voters, should read these bills and provide our opinions or disagreement with the proposed law. The vast majority of voters are either not aware that these bills are waiting to be read or do not care to read them. Then the law comes, and it’s a problem.
Two: For every thing we want to change, there is money to be lost at a national level. We want more land to buy? We need to decrease the revenue from selling land to the Hyatts, Darts and Indigos of the world. We want to grant fewer status or PR? Then we have to understand that we will make less revenue from that also. We want fewer cars? Then the revenue from car licenses will go down. We want less cruise tourism, then our fellow Caymanians in that industry will make less money.
For everything we want to change, we have to accept that we will lose money. That money is what pays for free breakfast/lunch for the students, for the laptops they get at school, for the medical care that elderly people get when they can no longer sustain themselves, and for the many (many!!) programmes that the government runs to benefit all of us.
Did you know that if your ten-year-old has problems managing their anger, there is a government programme for that? Or that if your 21-year-old suddenly decides to put their eight high school passes to good use and apply for a scholarship, they can? It is not guaranteed that they will get it, but the fact is that they can still apply at 21 or 25. These things are paid with the revenues that we would have to forego.
Three: Being an MP requires the ability to analyse facts; to read and interpret simple things and long, complex documents. It requires being able to communicate with others in a respectful, intelligent way, so that they can see your point of view and support what you are trying to accomplish, change or introduce.
Four: It is not the MPs’ job to create district councils. People create the councils and relay their recommendations to the MPs who then take them to the ministry, parliament, etc.
Five: When you choose not to vote, you are indirectly helping those candidates that you do not support to get elected. After all, you did not vote for their opponent either. When people choose not to vote, it increases the chances that really corrupt people will get in. It is our job to stop that from happening, so please vote.
Please keep the above in mind when “interviewing” the candidates that knock on your door over the next month or so. While the lights, the stages, the t-shirts, the mud-slinging, the glossy manifestos promising to change your mundane world — the circus! — will be entertaining for sure, keep in mind the realities.
Ask the right questions. Challenge their promises. Probe their brain. Would you pay for a ticket for that candidate to travel somewhere to represent you? Do you believe they would make the Cayman Islands proud or are they better suited for the district council?
Vote smart, not hard.
Do you have an Election Viewpoint? Send it to news@caymannewsservice.com for consideration.
Check out the CNS Election Section interactive map to see who is running in each constituency.
See the list of candidates and their party affiliations here.
Category: Viewpoint
Change writes: Every constituency has the same issue when their MP becomes a minister. It is not that they stop caring about their area, but Cabinet members have no choice but to tackle issues at national level, and that takes budget, meetings, reports, travel, conference calls, sitting with lawyers to streamline bills and laws — all […]
Item: We need to find some way to curtail the horsetrading that happens after an election. I don’t like that I vote for a person based upon their platform, but then afterward, they may recombine in a way that is disparate from that which they once professed to stand for.
I think we desperately need three things:
1) A streamlining of the People’s Initiated Referendum process. This should be the best of things for all of us, but it has been a sticky process.
2) Two votes. One for district, and one for Premier. It makes perfect sense. Don’t let the Premier be appointed by party consensus; let her or him be elected.
3) Term limits. I think all MPs should be allowed two terms, and no more. Why? Because times change, and we want to endorse the new and belay the old.
Any candidate who states “I served on a council” needs to get a grip. Those council positions were handed over in the same manner as is done elsewhere for sycophants.
MPs do not want district councils because they fear a leader rising up in the constituency through the district council who will more easily contest their seat…
Now that PPM have announced KB is deputy leader, district councils and the rule of any law can be kissed goodbye as the unfettered self serving bunch of thieves is threatening to take over.
Do not vote PPM if want honesty and duty to the country to be the foundations of our next government.
All MPs have WhattsApp groups for people to whine and complain. Are those to be construed as “District Councils”?
It’s perfect, then can ignore everyone in one shot
well said
In regard to point four – unless you are making some wider point about citizens taking actions themselves to initiate change you are entirely incorrect.
It is in fact the job of Parliament to establish District Councils – and their continued failure to do so is unconstitutional.
Section 119 of Constitution which is under Part VIII: ‘Institutions Supporting Democracy’ literally says:
‘a law enacted by the Legislature SHALL provide for the
establishment, functions and jurisdiction of Councils for each electoral district to operate as advisory bodies to the elected members of the Parliament.’
IF your argument is that people should take things into their own hands and strongarm MPs into doing their constitutionally mandated duty by preemptively forming Councils. There is an argument to be made in that regard but lets be real. MPs would just ignore any people-initiated council that contradicted or undermined them, they would say it was just made up of people who voted against them, or wanted to run for office themselves and the councils themselves would have no legal backing, no funds and no uniformity between districts and would be as effective as a radio talkshow unless hundreds of people showed up to the meetings which is unlikely.
If you have any interest in the councils being more than people airing their grievances in some sort of informal group therapy the councils need to be set up properly and given legal backing otherwise they will be a waste of time for all involved.
It should be noted that every other body that is mentioned in Part VIII of the Constitution has been established – the ONLY one that Parliament has repeatedly refused to establish as they are required to do by law are the District Advisory Councils, MPs have simply decided that it is not in their interest to have anyone competing in their space even if it is some mostly powerless talkshop.
If people sit and wait for Parliament to enact S119, we all can forget it.
I don’t disagree but – the idea that we are just going to form district councils out of thin air and that’s that is a bit silly.
1. Do we form 19 councils for the current number electoral districts or 6 councils for the traditional larger districts?
2. Who is going to chair these councils and how would they be governed or managed?
3. Directly in relation to 2. Who gets to decide the rules in the first place, who is going to make the determinations for compositions of the councils, when they meet, what issues will be raised etc, including the rules prior to the actual formations of the councils? Do we just expect that interested parties will enter a room, come to complete agreement on all matters and then proceed? Where are these councils going to meet and how frequently? Will members of the public be allowed to just show up and speak to open mics or will there be more general discussions held about particular issues that are decided by the councils? How will members of councils be chosen? How long will they be seated on the councils and what are the rules that they have to abide by?
4. Even if we decide Parliament will never act on the matter and do it ourselves how do we then translate that informal unlegislated council into an actual body that would advise MPs, report and liase with ministries or take smaller actions for constituents on matters that can be handled by the council itself?
5. Where do the budgets for the councils come from, are we just going to expect these unofficial councils to go door to door begging for funds and having residents trust that the money raised with no formal framework or oversight will just be used for the council and not just pocketed by members? Are we going to let businesses start funneling money to political interests through sponsoring these councils?
6. How do the different councils engage with each other? They will all be formed separately and have their own rules, members, funds and priorities?
And those are just a few of the questions that will need to be answered to even start to consider the idea of ad hoc Citizen Councils without some overarching framework or legislation.