“Boxing” George Foreman once said “is the sport to which all others aspire”. Meaning that all competition between men really is sublimated fighting - an assertion proven true every time football, basketball, or baseball players lose their tempers and start throwing punches.

But even boxing is an unnatural form of conflict. A ring fight according to Marquess of Queensberry rules is a lot different from a primeval street brawl where combatants gouge eyes and wrench testicles. All sports are contests with artificial restraints designed to allow other factors than sheer brute force to come into play. For skill and artistry can only be displayed in a controlled context.

It is no coincidence that modern sport was invented at the same time that democracy was taking hold in Britain. For the most crucial element in both is a strict adherence to mutually agreed upon rules of engagement, the most important of which is “no fighting”.

Indeed democracy is a contest of words where victory goes to the party with the best ideas, not – as has been the case through most of history – the strongest army. And when sporting or democratic rules are forgotten, games degenerate into brawls and politics into war as man reverts to the law of the jungle where might is right.

You hear a lot of talk in Jamaica these days about ending political antagonism and forming a government of national unity. But this misses a vital point. Democracy is after all a contest where the opposing parties have diametrically opposed interests. For each is trying to convince the public that it is the best choice to run the country. Asking political adversaries to say only good things about each other and support their rivals’ ideas is about as realistic as telling boxers to applaud each other’s punches.

Democracy’s superiority rests in this free contest of ideas. For just as competition in business raises the overall quality of products, so does political rivalry improve the general level of government. It is above all ceaseless intellectual competition that is responsible for the liberal west’s unprecedented economic and social progress since World War II.

But ideas can only be properly debated in a peaceful environment. And Jamaican democracy today reminds me of an out of control boxing match. Not only have the combatants thrown away the gloves and started hitting below the belt, but their seconds have entered the ring and started a brawl which is on the verge of engulfing the entire arena. Our goal should not be to cancel the bout but rather to clear the ring, put the gloves back on, and restart the fight with the referee again in control.

Which is why I was so disappointed by the general response of media commentators to the joint prayer meeting for peace between the Prime Minister and Opposition Leader. Instead of applauding it as a good first step and challenging them to show further unity against political violence, most talk show hosts and columnists journalists attacked it as hypocritical move designed to “fool up poor people”.

Of course this prayer meeting was primarily a public relations exercise. But every action and utterance of contending democratic politicians is designed to win votes. Because we know that the patriotic appeals and kissing of little children have no real genuine feeling behind them, it is impossible not to be sickened at times with the hypocrisy of the process. Yet better the lies and deceit of multi-party election campaigns than the manly heroism which outright civil wars often produce.

Too many people have died over the years for me to believe that any Jamaican politician is totally innocent in the matter of violence. And no doubt both parties are still arming henchmen. But however it started, violence has become such an entrenched part of Jamaican politics and taken on such a life of its own that neither party thinks it can afford to put down its weapons. For as in any war, the fear is that if we give up our guns and they do not we become sitting ducks.

But I believe in self-interest. And I think that our politicians would prefer to conduct the business of trying to win votes in more peaceful circumstances – it would at least make the winner’s job of governing easier. And media commentators should encourage even symbolic moves in that direction. How can cynically disparaging all gestures of non-violence further the cause of peace?

Despite all the guns and killings, Jamaican political violence is remarkably self-contained. For it has never come from an outside force or been directed at the overall governmental system itself. In fact not only has there never been any violent challenge to our political setup, all peaceful democratic attempts to “change the system” have failed. 

God knows why the Jamaican electorate has such a strong attachment to a “you run out and I run in” system that has consistently failed to deliver peace and prosperity. But every non-JLP and non-PNP candidate to contest elections here since 1962 has been trounced. Is there any other country where all elected legislative members have come from the same two parties?

Now if it is indeed true – as many maintain - that our two main parties are known purveyors of violence, does this not mean that Jamaican voters have in essence continually rejected parties that reject violence?

This of course defies all logic. But what other conclusion can be drawn from the facts? Frankly such electoral behaviour brings to mind those females who spurn “soft” nice guys that pamper them for “hardcore” bad boys that rough them up emotionally and physically. And perhaps Jamaican voters – like so many Jamaican women – really do associate a lack of forceful aggression with a lack of cojones.

If so we arm chair spectators who judge Jamaican politics by western standards may really have no idea what we are talking about. For instance I have never understood the need for Edward Seaga’s constantly aggressive and confrontational pronouncements. Yet he certainly knows the mind of Jamaican voters better than I, having been in intimate contact with them for nearly 50 years. He might have lost 4 out of the 5 general elections he has contested, but the JLP grassroots has remained loyally devoted to him for over 25 years. And he is now well ahead in the polls and seemingly on track to be the next prime minister.

So maybe there is method in Mr. Seaga’s madness. Maybe the people do want a one don leader. Maybe the only cardinal rule in politics here is that you must never be seen to back down. Maybe Jamaicans really will forgive anything in their political leaders except appearing weak. changkob@hotmail