He who desires power, wrote Machiavelli in his famously cynical political treatise “The Prince”, “should do what is right if he can; but he must be prepared to do wrong if necessary”. In democracy of course, we must add “as long as he doesn’t break the law”. But when power is at stake anything legal goes, as the recent US presidential elections have shown. So here is my Machiavellian analysis of Jamaican politics. (Of course some of us find it easier to talk than act Machiavellian, which is why we are not in politics. “If you can’t stand the heat”, said Harry Truman, “get out of the kitchen”.)

With no seats in parliament the NDM is a political party in name only. And if it does not win a seat in the next election it may well be finished as a political entity. Yet the NDM is not a political irrelevance, for it could well decide which party forms the next government.

A seat by seat analysis of the 1997 elections gives these results.

In the latest Stone Polls 15% of respondents say they would vote PNP, 17% JLP, and 7% NDM. Since those who don’t vote don’t count, election results on these lines would give the PNP 38% of the votes, the JLP 43% and the NDM 18%. Assuming the same number of ballots as in 1997 this would translate into a 135,997 vote loss for the PNP, with the JLP gaining 35,594 and the NDM 100,403. Applying these proportions to all constituencies gives the following breakdown.

But these polls have a 3% margin of error and could just as easily have yielded these results.

In short the JLP and PNP are in a statistical deadheat, the NDM on its own is unlikely to win any seats, and an JLP/NDM or PNP/NDM alliance would likely win a decisive victory.

There has been much talk lately about a JLP/NDM alliance or merger. And the above data shows this to be a Machiavellian no-brainer. The parties’ philosophical differences would naturally have to be ironed out, but as the man said, “Where the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great.”

Since the NDM claims to be the party of political reform, the obvious face saving solution for both sides would be for the JLP to promise the NDM a constitutional referendum if the alliance won the next election. Polls already show that most Jamaicans favour the concept of casting separate votes for Prime Minister and Member of Parliament. What could make more sense than giving the people an opportunity to vote for an idea they support?

The NDM might, in Mark Wignall’s words, be afraid to lose its virginity. But the NDM by itself is unlikely to get a chance to bring about the changes it desires. With the JLP it might be able to. If the NDM is not prepared to do whatever it legally takes to bring about constitutional reform, it might as well rename itself the National Democratic Thinktank. To paraphrase Mao Zedong, politics is not a tea party.

A truly Machiavellian JLP would make promises even if it did not intend to keep them. As Bismarck remarked “When you agree to something in principle, it means you have no intention of carrying it out in practice”. But an alliance would almost guarantee the NDM some seats in parliament. And you cannot change a democratic system without first getting elected.

Machiavellian analysis assumes that people consistently act in their logical self-interest, which is not always true. Al Gore and Ralph Nader were natural allies in the recent US presidential race but failed to unite and so handed victory to George W. Bush. If they had to do it again, would Gore not have offered a little more and Nader asked for a little less?

With this lesson staring them in the face one would expect to see the JLP and NDM bending over backwards to accommodate each other. Yet neither seems interested in joining forces, perhaps proving Hegel right – “What experience and history teach is this - that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it.”

The NDM has made half-hearted overtures, but JLP leader Edward Seaga seems to have rejected any idea of a merger or alliance, proclaiming that “anyone who wants to join the JLP is welcome to do so”. But a party which has lost six consecutive elections surely needs all the help it can get. Have two decades of continual electoral defeats taught the JLP nothing? Here is Machiavelli again - “Whosoever desires constant success must change his conduct with the times.”

Naturally a comrade Machiavelli would do all he could to prevent the JLP and NDM from joining forces, and might even himself whisper sweet constitutional promises in the NDM’s ear. Yet by insisting that it will not hold a referendum on the proposed Caribbean Court of Justice, the PNP is practically gifting the JLP and NDM an issue on which to make common cause. Indeed both opposition parties have already threatened civil action if the CCJ is implemented without a referendum. If they end up fighting for one together, they might well end up agreeing on other issues. As the old proverb says, a mutual enemy fosters friendship.

P.J. Patterson’s reasoning is difficult to understand. All legal and moral considerations aside, his flat rejection of a CCJ referendum might easily come to be perceived by the Jamaican people as a sign of disrespect. The argument about a referendum dividing the nation is ridiculous. When did 100% of any electorate ever agree on any issue? The Caribbean Court only became a political issue because of the government’s stubbornness. Had it shown more flexibility on the referendum question the CCJ would never have become a party matter.

Democracy is ultimately about letting the people decide their own fate. But Mr. Patterson apparently thinks he knows better than the people what is good for the people. Which, as Machiavelli might have said, can be a dangerous assumption. changkob@hotmail.com