When Michael Manley retired from office in 1992, his address to the Jamaican population held these words: “Democracy means far more than the right to vote every five years. It means the right to participate in every aspect of national and community life. The people must believe that they can take part.”

Taking part in a democracy must necessarily come in many different forms. It must mean that not only the faceless moneylenders, but also the creased-faced populace, to whom political parties owe nothing, ought to be allowed to take part.

In a game of holding on to power, any casualty for the good of the party is worth it. In the serious business that is leading people, casualties must always be for the good of the people.

Taking part in a democracy must mean people are owed accountability, media are owed respect for their role, political agnostics are owed the duty of explanation. A government owes all these people all these things.

The problem with Jamaica is that we have long had political parties. Seldom have we had government.

And if participation is the test of democracy/government, the People’s National Party (PNP) has been failing that test left, right and centre during this campaign season. The constant harping on Andrew Holness’s house, betraying undertones of (and sometimes stark) classism, the refusal to have a public debate, and endless excuses have been archetypal of a Jamaican politics still burdened by the nouveau-intelligent hubris of the 1960s. They have not been archetypal of a Government of Jamaica. Indeed, the excuses given by the PNP for ducking debates and for harping on the leader of the Jamaica Labour Party’s (JLP) house, have been so laden with its own fertiliser that it’s a wonder ‘irony’ isn’t spelt indelibly in brown on the lips of Paul Burke, Peter Phillips, Delano Franklyn, et al.

And if accountability is the litmus for gaining the participation of people, Holness has made massive strides this campaign period. The PNP pushed on the house and Holness played it masterfully, waiting for them to overextend on the righteous outrage and promise things in return for disclosure, before he released his financial information — details which he, as a party leader, may have owed to no one.

His request that Peter Phillips pay damages for alleged defamation to a charity was a brilliant political move. And the youth have been noticing. If elections were won on optics, the JLP would already have won. Anyone who goes on social media would tell you that if it was a constituency, the JLP would already have one certain member of parliament.

Holness, like never before, has shown an appreciation of what seeking to be what Government must mean. One can only hope that even if he loses, he will continue along this path. Moves like voluntary disclosure, engagement with ‘articulate minorities’, and taking manifestos to Coronation Market show an attitude that inspires those who don’t usually vote to go out in the JLP’s favour. The only problem: We’ve seen it all before.

The belief system of those who electioneers like to call ‘apathetic’ has been so shot by the green people, their orange colleagues, and both the parties’ forebears, that it’s very hard to believe in any attitude change, much less one that comes around election time. They are certainly not apathetic to Holness; they care. The youth want something to believe in; but countless betrayals (one of the deepest coming from your last predecessor in leadership of JLP, in whom so many saw such potential) have left them not remembering how.

What that means is that a Government of Jamaica (and not merely a political party in power) must not only stand the tests of accountability, respect and explanation, but they must stand the test of time for all other tests — even, and especially when it is not politically convenient.

In his 1991 book The Poverty of Nations, Michael Manley wrote: “Any realistic vision of change must be based on the notion of empowerment of people.” Hard to empower anyone you view as apathetic, or who views you as opportunistically accountable.

Yes, the People’s National Party (PNP) has run a terrible public campaign. But if the last election taught us anything, it is what happens on the ground that matters. Political ‘gods’ and immortals toiling through the night is what turned the last election, disproving polls and public opinion. Historically, being a political party in power has worked a lot better for the PNP than the JLP. The term ‘PNP country’ attests to that.

This plea, therefore, seems better directed at Holness and JLP. From anecdotal evidence and social media, it seems that many younger voters have decided to go out and vote for the JLP. But, it is highly doubtful that this alone will win the election. Many more youth simply watch, afraid to believe, lest they entirely lose their shot belief system. Win or lose, will Holness seek to govern knowing that he will owe the people (even the apathetic) everything, or merely seek power? Any realistic vision of change must be based on the notion of empowering of the people through real things, like actually following through on term limits.

Will the PNP, knowing they are better at winning elections, take the first step of seeking to be a Government, by listening to this plea – choosing to owe the people everything, when you can owe them nothing?

Ideally, you both would listen to this plea… but ideals and politics rarely go hand in hand. Though ideals and revolutions are not such strange bedfellows.

Yakum Fitz-Henley is a law student at the University of the West Indies, Mona. Send comments to the Observer oryfitzhenley@gmail.com.