The Editor, Sir:

The current stand-off between the Electoral Commission and the House and Senate raise serious questions on a number of issues. Let us examine them dispassionately.

Open voting and garrison constituencies - The social issue:

Open voting is the process whereby an elector instead of going behind the screen and marking his or her 'X' in secret, shows openly to anyone who wishes to see, how he or she voted. The second CAFFE report characterised and identified a number of garrison constituencies in the country. One may well ask the question as to why would a voter choose to vote openly? In garrison constituencies, open voting is done for two main reasons:

First, to show loyalty to the party that rules and, second, and more seriously to avoid possible death for voting 'The wrong way'.

Such are the realities of garrison constituencies where streets divide loyalties and factions. Imprisonment, which is proposed by the Electoral Commission, is like putting new wine in old wineskins. This social value system and attitude needs to be removed by education, a better appreciation of democracy and more understanding among voters of different political persuasions. What will the Electoral Commission propose for the enforcer who is caught threatening the voter?

The management issue

The old Electoral Advisory Committee now replaced by the Electoral Commission (EC) is a creature of Parliament and, therefore in management terms, is responsible to its created and delegated authority. It is clear that the commission is seeking to usurp its delegated authority and is clearly outside of the management boundaries that it should respect.

The constitutional issue

The most serious of the concerns has to be the constitutional issue. It is to the credit of our parliamentarians and senators that they have joined hands in a bipartisan approach to reject the proposed recommendation of the Electoral Commission. What is even more astounding is the fact that the commission is trying to bulldoze in an arrogant way, an acceptance of the recommendation.

Clearly, a constitutional issue is at stake. On no account should the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition bow to any pressure from the Electoral Commission. In fact, they need to do more. They need to make sure for the future that the 'people's representatives are constitutionally protected' from what are seen as reckless and foolhardy recommendations from the EC or any other group, for that matter.

I am, etc.,

A. W. SANGSTER

Executive Chairman

Jamaican Institute of Management and

Former Chairman of CAFFE