Dear Editor,
Whilst it may be true that our constitution has not had in place the ideal structure for our small legislature in our micro state, the upcoming elections provide a much greater and complete test of how our democracy can work than the best effort at increased rulings in respect of our primary source of instability.
There is clearly a consensus that this “ship jumping” is not good for the country. I have not heard anybody say that it is a good thing and should not be stopped. It could be stopped by rule making, or it could be stopped by the choice of the people when it comes to electing persons who exhibit such behaviour.
Certainly rules can be made to limit ship jumping, but they too will come with complications given that ultimately you cannot restrict anybody from “voting their conscience.”
Given the strong consensus on ship jumping the question is whether the result of the February elections will truly reflect this consensus that ship jumping is bad for the country? If the elections reflect this consensus then our democracy will clearly be effective. If it does not then it is clear that some other factors are playing a role in our democracy.
First, we will see whether the parties in their choice of candidates will include “ship jumpers.” If they do, then clearly the leadership of these parties will be holding the opinion that the concern of ship jumping will be overridden in an election by voting on personal relations, family ties and other less democratic considerations.
Then there will be the result of the actual elections. Everything points to it being likely that there will be at least some “ship jumpers” on some of the lists. How well will these ship jumping candidates and their parties do? Will the parties be penalized for accepting ship jumpers in the past or carrying ship jumpers on their list?
The result will say a great deal about the quality of our democracy.
Robbie Ferron
