The
following is part three of a speech is was presented by yours truly at a town
hall meeting discussing corruption in Jamaica and how it should affect our view
of a republic.
The truth is that this government of ours think only in the
short term as is typical of politicians. They have stated time and again that
their constitutional reform is limited to replacing Charles III with a
President. My question is that, if the government is so committed to
transforming Jamaica, then why are not tackling more substantial areas? E.g. the structure of the court system, in an
article written by Yours Truly entitled “Ditch the Court, keep the King.” I
pointed out that replacing the JCPC with the CCJ would be a far more
substantial change as this would significantly affect how our courts would rule
in death penalty cases, surely that means much more to the ordinary man than
the presidential aspirations of a few PNP and JLP politicians? And it is not
just the court issue, I’m sure we all aware of the situation regarding
Professor Richard Albert whose membership on the Constitutional Reform
Committee has been a source of controversy. The government responding by
stating that his citizenship status and political views have nothing to with
becoming a republic. Additionally, a letter published by The Gleaner dated
April 19, 2023 put forward a series of other proposals for reform such as fixed
election dates, proportional representation, impeachment for corrupt activities
and recall for non-performing MPs. I would personally add fixed terms for MPs
as well as independent senators although these was not stated in the article.
What is the point here? Each of these proposals would go a far way in helping to keep the government more accountable to the people of this country, but the government is not interested in any of this. Having fixed election dates and a recall system for Members of Parliament would do 2 things, 1. MPs would no longer able to ignore their constituencies for long periods of time until the next campaign cycle rolls around, and 2. the government couldn’t easily manipulate the election date to a time that they feel is most advantageous to them. Both of these changes would immediately affect how MPs perform in their duties. Can you imagine how politicians would be forced to change their modus operandi if they knew that corrupt activities would get them impeached? In the 2007 election campaign, the JLP under Bruce Golding had promised that they would look at adding impeachment procedures in our constitution, yet nothing has come of it. The inclusion of independent non-partisan senators would add more diverse viewpoints to the upper house of our legislature but instead they insist on keeping the 13-8 setup which ensures that the senate will only be filled by party loyalists who failed to win a seat in the general election.
A president of a republic is supposed to represent his
people but the government clearly has no intention of representing the people.
This is clear as the constitutional reform process has given them an
opportunity to increase representation at all levels in both central and local
government and all this government wants to do is have a president, who will be
selected by them. So where does the representation of the people come in?
simply put, it’s not important to them. The government claims that it wants to
do public consultation and education but what they are really doing is
propaganda where they simply tell the people what they are going to do and
expect total complicity. Frankly even then, their efforts are not entirely in
good faith, as they have given the impression that they are moving from the
Westminster model to something else. Nothing could be further from the truth as
the government has no plans to move away from Westminster save in one aspect.
What is interesting to note is that contrary to popular opinion, the
Westminster model can itself be tweaked and still remain Westminster in essence
for example Australia has an elected upper house while New Zealand has
proportional representation, both have fixed election dates. Yet
notwithstanding this, they are fundamentally Westminster democracies with
ministers responsible to parliament (not separate from it) and a
governor-general to represent the monarchy. I say this to say that I am not all opposed to Westminster, as I stated above
the most democratic countries in the world (Norway, Finland Denmark and Sweden)
all use a variation of Westminster so it clear that the system has it virtues
and can be tweaked to improve representation.
What I find
unacceptable however is the false narrative where the government isn’t telling
the people that the Westminster model isn’t going anywhere and allows the false
impression to persist. I suppose they don’t want the people asking what is the
point of reform if it isn’t going to be comprehensive. But that is the point,
it was NEVER meant to be comprehensive, it was meant to be very narrow and this
is why I stated in an earlier article entitled “wrong priorities” (January 19,
2023) that the government isn’t concerned with the aspirations of the people
but more soothing their egos. They want a president, because they think it will
make them look good. We know this, because that is exactly what happened in
Barbados when the government took a unilateral decision to become a republic,
it was celebrated in the American press for days and that is what this
government wants, their moment in the sun. Yet this will NOT be about the
Jamaican people, it will be about our local overlords virtue signaling about
they overcame the “oppressive” monarchy. The irony is that King Charles isn’t
oppressing anyone, not even members of own family who are in open rebellion
against the Crown (son, daughter-in-law, brother) and the government would not
have overcome anything because the King has already said that he will only stay
with realms that WANT him to stay. The only people that will be oppressed and
overcome is us, not by the royal family but by the bipartisan duopoly that has
ruled over us since 1962, yet this is not the narrative that will be told in
the media but instead the false impression will be given about us breaking some
imaginable shackles but which is why we are told that is about the national
psyche, an intangible and in-concrete concept that is made up entirely in their
own heads. The deceptive nature of this narrative is exactly why I say that the
position of head of state in a country like ours cannot be subjected to
partisan whims, it must be truly apolitical and there is no institution that
represents neutrality, more than the crown. Or as the Times so elegantly put it
in 1996 “Politicians debating the future of our monarchy resemble a poachers’
convention deliberating on the future role of the gamekeeper.”
We are constantly told that the monarchy is just a
figurehead and that moving to president is mere cosmetic, this is fiction, the
truth is that crown retains much authority such as dissolving parliament,
appointing ministers and ambassadors, proclaiming states of emergency and
granting royal assent to bills. Some may argue that all these powers should be
in hands of someone local, I would answer by reminding them that all these
powers are already exercised by someone local i.e. The Governor-General. So why
not formalize it by turning the office of governor-general into the office of
president? Here is why, because whereas a vice-regal office represents a completely
neutral Crown, a presidential 0ffice represents the ruling political class, the
argument that the president would represent the people is a fairy tale because
a president not chosen by the people cannot represent them. It is a lie that a
governor-general need not tell. The truth is that our system works because it
provides us with the benefits of having an apolitical monarchy but also
provides us with a middleman who is one of our own to exercise all the
prerogatives associated with royalty. The ruling class isn’t ignorant of this
fact but are counting on us not to know so they can push their agenda. And what
is their agenda? Greater power and influence for themselves.
I have shown in no uncertain terms that if the
government was serious about meaningful reform then there are several steps
they could take in this but instead they have resorted to empty platitudes. I
have shown that the government’s interest is more is symbols and optics that
benefit them than in change that benefit the nation. Writing of the late Queen
in 1998, the Daily Telegraph stated “We should all bear carefully in mind the
constitutional safeguards inherent in the monarchy: While the Queen occupies
the highest office of state, no one can take over the government. While she is
head of the law, no politician can take over the courts. While she is
ultimately in command of the Armed Forces, no would-be dictator can take over
the Army. The Queen’s only power, in short, is to deny power to anyone else.
Any attempt to tamper with the royal prerogative must be firmly resisted.” And that is the central point
Most of all, if
you get nothing from this speech get this, people are inherently corrupt,
politicians more so, we need institutions to keep them honest and this
government is not interested in any such institution that would limit them,
their ambition is to have it all in reach and so long as the monarchy is in the
way they cannot get there, that is bad news for them but should be good news
for us the people. We know the arguments
against the monarchy already, independence; democracy; black man time now;
mental slavery and all the rest but for all these arguments I shall repeat the
words of celebrated author C.S. Lewis “Monarchy can easily be debunked, but
watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in
Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach - men
to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they
desire mere equality they cannot reach it. For spiritual nature, like bodily
nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.”
THE END
No comments:
Post a Comment