Does Choiseul/Saltibus Need Another Independent Candidate ?

“We cannot support dishonesty, manipulation, a lack of transparency, no accountability and corruption in decision making and governance of the people's affairs.

So we are campaigning and voting for an Independent Dr. A St. Rose.

Get your troops ready my soldier. Thank you for standing with me for what is right for you, your future and country. Thank you for your support, trust and confidence in me to represent and fight for you...much appreciated!”  Whatsapp communique dated July 23, 2020 from Dr Alphonsus St Rose’s Camp.

Some claim that we need more independent candidates in elections; those who are disillusioned with party politics think that we could find judicious wise independents that could do the job just as we want.

I have no problem with “independent” people offering their services to the electors. Freedom to stand and to put a different point of view is vital to life in a democracy. So is choice between serious candidates who can win. There is nothing stopping an independent candidate becoming a serious rival for power, if their message is popular and the other competing parties are unimpressive. Occasionally this happens.  Often in General elections people want to choose between the major parties, because they want to influence which party will end up running the body concerned.

However, I do think we need to examine what we mean by “independent”.  An independent can be genuinely independent of all political parties. That means that they will not take a party whip once elected to a given body. They can make up their own minds, unguided by colleagues in the same party. Some will think this an advantage.

However, in a Parliament it also has some disadvantages. It means the independent cannot form a government. The independent cannot guarantee to introduce anything they offered in their manifesto, as they may not even have a seconder for their proposals, let alone a majority. They may become inadvertent or unintentional liars or promise breakers. In office they discover they have to change their minds or broker deals with others to try to get anything done.

The question of independence from a party should not be confused with true independence of thought. An independent might be more ideological than a party candidate. They might have clear and strong prejudices, but not declare them before the election. You do not know how an independent will decide matters or what is likely to be their view of a common problem, unless they tell you in their manifesto. Often their manifesto is very thin on detail.  With a UWP or SLP candidate you have more idea of what you are likely to get.

My Take:  Do Party candidates have an advantage over independent candidates? It seems to be the case – independent candidates have garnered fewer votes on average as compared to party candidates.

Advantages which party candidates may have over independent candidates include:

• The benefit of an established party brand name
• Organizational and logistical assistance
• Backing of popular political leaders in the party

An individual might want to run on a platform supporting the interests of certain groups identified by gender or community. This would be all right, provided he or she did not stir up hatred or promote unreasonable discrimination.

People wishing to stand as independents have found it hard. The electors do not seem to understand the idea. The electorate does not think of parties in terms of ideas. Their suspicion of independents seems to be linked to a desire to know to which group of persons a candidate has attached him or her-self —for that is what joining a party mostly means.

Therefore, independent candidates who are intent on overcoming the odds in the upcoming General Elections must be well-known, established and prominent individuals with proven leadership achievements in their field of expertise.