Roger Clarke vs Everald Warmington. Was Warmington out of line?

Like me start my saying Everald Warmington represent what I do not want to see in the politics of Jamaica. He is boorish, crude and out-of-order, but his people love him dearly, why?

Jamaicans could not give a damn about your character as long as you look after there interest and so people like Everald will win elections after elections as long as he looks after there interest, no matter how bad is behaviour is.

Someone may wonder why I am saying this in the context of what is to follow, but I must highlight what I have found to be a real problem in how we address issues in Jamaica.

The papers have reported and I say on TV , Everald Warmington say “ if you don’t vote you don’t count and those who vote does not deserve state benefits”. He has been roundly condemned by political commentators, talk show host, bloggers, sections of the media and has been asked to apologize or withdraw those statements.

The General Secretary of the JLP has distanced itself from the statements made by Everald Warmington and the JLP leader has been asked to condemn the statement.

In November 2013 the Minister of Agricuture, Roger Clarke said the following:

Agriculture Minister Roger Clarke yesterday urged Jamaicans who will benefit from new housing schemes to reward the ruling People’s National Party (PNP) with their votes and told the builders they needed to complete the development within the next three years.

“Remember, that it was through Minister Roger Clarke and the People’s National Party mi get it; mi a go reward them, yes, because one hand wash the other, and if I scratch your back, you scratch fi mi back too,” Clarke told his audience of mostly sugar workers

I could be wrong, but I did not hear any demand for the Prime  Minister to condemn this statement, nor do I recall a loud outcry from civil society for any apology or withdrawal of that statement. In addition the PNP never released a statement to distance itself from Roger Clarke’s position.

Why were the two situations not treated the same ?

Warmy never said only JLP voters will or should get support, he said only those who voted should receive state support ( Just for clarity), on the other hand Roger is saying voted PNP in exchange for state support ( House).

Now the question is, was Warmington wrong.

Commonsenseja likes to be balanced and unemotional, so I decided to take a closer look at what Warmy said to see if this exist in any other jurisdiction and here is what I found.

Countries were compulsory voting exist

Enforced[edit]

These are the 10 countries that enforce compulsory voting:

• Argentina – Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70 and between 16 and 18. (However in primaries, citizens under 70 may refuse to vote, if they formally express their decision to the electoral authorities, at least 48 hours before the election. This is valid only for the subsequent primary, and needs to be repeated each time the voter wishes not to participate.)
• Australia – Compulsory for federal and state elections for citizens 18 years of age and above. The requirement is for the person to enroll, attend a polling station and have their name marked off the electoral roll as attending, receive a ballot paper and take it to an individual voting booth, mark it, fold the ballot paper and place it in the ballot box. Because of the secrecy of the ballot, it is not possible to determine whether a person has completed their ballot paper prior to placing it in the ballot box. In some states, local council elections are also compulsory.^[19]
• Brazil^[20] – Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old. Non-compulsory for unregistered citizens aged 16 or 17. A justification form for not voting can be filled at election centers and post offices.
• Democratic Republic of the Congo
• Ecuador – Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 65 years old; non-compulsory for citizens aged 16–18, illiterate people, and those older than 65.
• Luxembourg – Only for the regionals and if signed up
• Nauru
• Peru^[21] – Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 70 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 70
• Singapore – Compulsory for citizens above 21 years old on the 1st of January of the year of election

• Uruguay

There is one canton in Switzerland that enforces compulsory voting:

• Schaffhausen

Not enforced[edit]

Countries that have compulsory voting on the law books but do not enforce it:

• Belgium – Compulsory for every citizen from 18, legal sanctions still exist, but they haven’t been enforced by prosecutors since 2003.^[22][23]
• Bolivia
• Costa Rica
• Dominican Republic – Members of the military and national police cannot vote
• Egypt – Members of the military and national police cannot vote
• Greece
• Honduras
• Lebanon – Men only^[24]
• Libya – Technically compulsory
• Mexico
• Panama
• Paraguay – Compulsory for citizens between 18 and 75 years old, non-compulsory for those older than 75.
• Thailand
• Turkey

Measures to encourage voting[edit]

Although voting in a country may be compulsory, penalties for failing to vote are not always strictly enforced. In Australia and Brazil, providing a legitimate reason for not voting (such as being sick or outside the country) is accepted. In Argentina, those who were ill on voting day are excused by requesting a doctor to prove their condition; those over 500 km (310 mi) away from their voting place are also excused by asking for a certificate at a police station near where they are. Belgian voters can vote in an embassy if they are abroad or can empower another voter to cast the vote in their name; the voter must give a “permission to vote” and carry a copy of the eID card and their own on the actual elections.

States that sanction nonvoters with fines generally impose small or nominal penalties. However, penalties for failing to vote are not limited to fines and legal sanctions. Belgian voters who repeatedly fail to vote in elections may be subject to disenfranchisement.Singapore voters who fail to vote in a general election or presidential election will be subjected to disenfranchisement until a valid reason is given or a fine is paid. Goods and services provided by public offices may be denied to those failing to vote in Peru andGreece. In Brazil, people who fail to vote in an election are barred from obtaining a passport and subject to other restrictions until settling their situation before an electoral court or after they have voted in the two most recent elections. If a Bolivian voter fails to participate in an election, the person may be denied withdrawal of the salary from the bank for three months.^[25][26]

In Turkey, according to a law passed by the parliament in 1986, if eligible electors do not cast a vote in elections, they pay a fee of about 10 Turkish lira (about $6 US).^[27

I highlighted this section relating to Brazil.

Credit : Wikipedia

Verdict: Well you be the judge.