Whatever planet earth’s other problems, democracy is thriving. Never before have so many voted so freely and fairly. But the law of averages means that the more elections held, the more close ones you get. So it’s no surprise that razor thin vote counts are becoming increasingly common. In the past year Germany, Costa Rica, Italy, the Czech Republic and Mexico have all seen elections won by less than 1% of ballots cast. Might it be Jamaica’s turn soon to have a ‘too close to call’ election night?

For all our pontificating pundits, no one has any real idea what Jamaica’s present political mood is. Are the masses still enamoured with Sister P, or has Prime Minister Simpson-Miller’s lackluster performance so far flattened the Portia bounce? Are voters sick of arrogant PNP incompetence or even more turned off by wishy washy JLP ineffectiveness? Has Bruce Golding’s technical grasp of the issues won over the people, or do they view him as a cold fish flip flopper? Cynics say it’s a terrible government versus a lousy opposition. And an Opposition Leader who is widely respected but who many don’t like challenging a Prime Minister who is widely liked but who many don’t respect.

But my gut feeling – probably worth what this article costs – is that right now the negatives and positives on both sides largely cancel each other out. And if a vote were held tomorrow the victory margin would in my view probably be closer than the 5% that separated the two parties in 2002.

Of course a week is a long time in politics, and it’s anyone’s guess when the next elections will be held. ‘Insiders’ say ‘soon’, but they’ve been beating that drum for three months. What with her divided party and the scandals swirling around, one gets the impression that not even the Prime Minister herself has a clear date in mind.

Knife edge elections – which might be defined as those in which less than 1% separates the winning and losing party – have never been uncommon. Since World War II Britain has witnessed three – 1951, 1964, 1973 – and America three – 1960, 1968, 2000. In 1951 and 1974 the British party that lost the popular vote actually won the most seats and so formed the government. And in 2000 the American candidate who lost the vote still won the presidency with the most electoral votes.

Now the real test of democracy is not so much that the side that gets the most votes governs, but that the side that loses doesn’t head for the hills guns ablaze. It hardly matters if 50.1 % or 49.9% of the people voted for party that governs them. What is crucial is that the side that lost, under whatever system was agreed upon before ballots were cast, accepts the results without shouting ‘We was robbed” loudly enough for hot heads to start shooting.

Even a mature democracy like the USA was bitterly divided among party lines after the controversial 2000 Gore-Bush election. Each side frothed angrily at the other and no-one seemed to be able to stay neutral. Even the Supreme Court that decided the matter split 5 to 4 along party lines.

An even worse situation prevailed in Trinidad after the December 2001 election when both main parties won 18 seats. The symbolic President asked the PNM to form the government based on nothing but his instincts – and perhaps former membership of the PNM. The opposing UNC – which had actually won the most votes - refused to accept this decision and the resulting deadlock prevented the election of a new president and speaker of parliament. A new vote was called in October 2002, the third in three years. Luckily this time there was a 20-16 seat split.

Now Jamaica is a notoriously violent country with notoriously volatile political elements. What would happen if we had a 30-30 tie in seats, or one party won the vote by say 1% but the other got say 31 seats?

Maybe both sides would sit down and calmly discuss the best way to work out matters in the interest of the country and come to a mutually agreed upon solution. Maybe we would have mass demonstrations a la Mexico. Or maybe one or both sides would bawl ‘Ballot box thief fe dead!’ and all those illegal high powered guns police tell us are out there – some capable of taking out targets at a mile and a half – would be tested on live targets uptown and downtown.

Now Jamaica experienced a ‘razor edge’ election in December 1949 when the PNP won the popular vote 43.5% to 42.9% but the JLP won 17 of 30 seats. But the British Crown still held ultimate power then, which limited any scope for protests and upheaval. Still, the first of many official investigations into Jamaican political violence was the August 1949 Sir Hector Hearne Commission Report. This was prompted by a July by-election murder and comments like Wills Isaacs’ infamous “a broken skull or two was not much in the growth of a nation”. So much for the supposed peaceful ‘BustaManley’ golden age of Jamaican politics!

On the face of it Jamaica has been a model of democratic stability since 1962 – no assassinations, no coups, no revolutions, a continuously free press and independent judiciary. In many ways this has been a tribute to the wisdom of our people, but in others it’s been just plain luck. Time and again we have been one shot away from chaos, but that shot has never come. Suppose either Michael Manley or Edward Seaga had been injured or killed – and both dodged bullets aplenty - in the near civil war atmosphere of 1980? What are the odds that Jamaican Democracy would have survived?

Even this year we have seen two incidents that could have unleashed political chaos. Suppose Bruce Golding had been killed – as an early rumour actually had it – in the Tivoli incident that saw one of his supporters shot not six feet from him? Or suppose Desmond McKenzie had suffered heart failure when hit by a tear gas canister while marching on Jamaica House?

For political diehards the other party is always wrong no matter what. And if incidents like those took place in the heat of a disputed election, God knows what would happen - especially in the inner city garrisons which are hotbeds of violence at the best of times.

Now the future’s not ours to see and the next election might well bring a decisive victory for one side. But it would surely be prudent for Mr. Danville Walker and representatives from both major parties to seriously analyze all close election scenarios and to think through all possible ramifications of a bitterly contested ballot. Incidentally, just what does our constitution say about a tied seat count?

Ideally all sides should jointly sign an agreed upon by all code of conduct to be followed in the event of the unexpected. True, there is no guarantee that either side would stick by pledges it made. But at least the nation would have a set point of reference to adhere to in the midst of chaos. It’s far easier to stay calm and logical when examining hypothetical situations than it is in the actual heat of battle. If the electoral unthinkable does become reality – as it has so often of late across the planet – at least we will have examined the matter in a state of objective rationality. And as Louis Pasteur said, chance favours the prepared mind.