Introduction

• Author: Amanda Sives
• Profession: Lecturer in Politics at the University of Liverpool
• Pages: 11-27

INTRODUCTION

XIXI

XIXI

XI

Introduction

On September 3, 2007, Jamaicans voted in the fifteenth general election

since adult suffrage was granted in 1944. Despite reported concerns of then

Commissioner of Police Lucius Thomas indicating it would be violent, election

day was a relatively peaceful affair.1 However, during the campaign, there was

violence in a number of marginal constituencies. Although partisan political

violence has declined significantly since the peak of the 1980 election, it continues

to have salience within the wider political culture. A former British colony,

independent since 1962, the Jamaican political system operates under the two

party Westminster model. Unlike other countries in Latin America and the

Caribbean, violence in Jamaican politics has occurred within the democratic

framework between supporters of the two main political parties, the Jamaica

Labour Party (JLP) and the People’s National Party (PNP) and has sought to

influence the electoral outcome rather than overthrow the state. There is little

doubt political violence in Jamaica has been less destabilising than in other

countries in the Latin American region (particularly in the Southern Cone), yet

the existence of violence and liberal democratic politics side by side requires

further investigation. That is the purpose of this book.

In this brief introductory chapter, I focus on how politics and violence has

been covered in the political science literature. I am interested specifically in

how electoral politics and violence have been approached. The term ‘partisan

political violence’, as a helpful way of explaining the Jamaican case, will be

discussed. In the second section of the chapter, I explain my own theoretical

perspective and critically examine existing explanations. Finally, I set out my

methodology and introduce the structure of the book.

Elections, Political Violence and Partisan Political Violence

There have been many studies of political violence varying from case studies

(single or comparative), cross-national surveys and thematic analysis of, for

example, revolutionary violence, guerrilla movements, terrorist activities, state

violence, paramilitary activity and military interventions. However this

voluminous literature provides little insight into explaining the Jamaican

experience. This is due partly to the assumption that politically violent actions

XIIXII

XIIXII

XII ELECTIONS, VIOLENCE AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS IN JAMAICA

or actors seek to radically shift the balance of power or overthrow the state.

This has not been the case in Jamaica where violence has been a weapon in the

armouries of the political parties in the struggle for power. The violence has

been ‘contained’ within the boundaries of a liberal democratic political system,

although the extent to which democratic norms have actually been practised can

be challenged. The precise relationship between politics and violence has been

a source of some debate amongst commentators. There are those, such as

Neiburg, who argue violence is an extension of the bargaining process. In his

view, political violence includes:

acts of disruption, destruction, injury whose purposes, choices of

targets or victims, surrounding circumstances, implementations and/

or effects have political significance, that is, tend to modify the

behaviour of others in a bargaining situation that has consequences

for the social system.2

This is a broad definition which concentrates on outcomes rather than

motivations. Such outcomes are not specified beyond the fact they modify

behaviour and have political significance. Neiburg does not define who is involved

in the violence (state or non-state actors), whether actions are undertaken by

individuals or collectives and neither is he explicit about the forms of violence

which occur (organised or spontaneous). The definition also speaks to the

overlapping motivations behind the violence: the key point here is that violence

can have political significance even if it is motivated by other considerations

(whether criminal, personal, territorial or a combination of factors). However,

while on a general level, I would agree with the view that all violence has political

implications, this broad definition provides little use as an analytical tool. To

put it simply, we know that certain acts of violence are more directly political

than others. In order to usefully discuss the relationship between politics and

violence, we need to recognise the distinction between those acts of violence

which seek to directly impact on political processes and those which have

tangential political repercussions. For example, an act of criminal violence can

have a political outcome, such as a change in legislation. In contrast, violence

which seeks to stop people voting or forces people to vote would be a directly

politically violent act and easily identifiable as such. As it is not always obvious

when an act should be characterised as political violence, Neiburg’s broad