Embracing our destiny…what does it mean?

 

In the discourse on constitutional reform one word I often hear used in the rhetoric is that of “destiny”. This is normally used in two phrases. Either we are being told that becoming a republic is in our destiny or we are told that to become a republic is taking our destiny in our own hands. Both of these sound very good from a campaign standpoint but I would like to go beyond the fancy phrases and examine if such sentiments have any merit or not.

The first idea that I would like to challenge is that becoming a republic is to “take our destiny in our own hands”. This presumes that until we have a president our destiny is in the hands of someone else and only by replacing King Charles with a president will that change. I recall in a forum on an online discussion, someone pointed to the example of what Mia Mottley imposed on Barbados in 2021 as “taking charge of one’s destiny. I, however would contradict that narrative by pointing to the fact that the people of Barbados were given no say in their destiny by their government. Did the people of Barbados truly want to replace the late Queen Elizabeth? Maybe or maybe not. The truth is we will never know because the decision to become a republic was not made BY the people but made FOR the people by a government who did not ask the people for permission to change the constitution in the first place. Does this sound like being charge of your destiny? I know some would say that the government was duly elected and as such has the right to change the constitution on their own? This argument is a logical fallacy as the standard practice of democracies is that governments are elected to uphold the constitution not to change it as they see fit. It is people who have the ultimate right to decide what they want to do with the constitution, St Vincent demonstrated perfectly well how this is done in 2009 when the people were given the opportunity to become a republic and they rejected it in a public vote. It should be pointed out that they did not have to reject it, they could have gone along with it but they chose not to. This is how a nation’s destiny is decided, by the will of the people.

 

This brings me to my second criticism of this “destiny” narrative. Jamaica’s destiny is whatever we make it to be. A republic is not and has never been an inevitability. The government only wants us to think that it is inevitable because it serves their interest for us to think that, but the truth is the power should not rest with the government and it certainly does not rest with Brits either (contrary to what we are told), the power belongs to us, the people of Jamaica because the constitution is clear on that already, we have no need of a president to solidify that fact. 

 I can already anticipate the backlash to my assertions. “If the power belongs to us already then shouldn’t we have a president to show that we are truly independent?” That might be a useful argument if we were talking about a president chosen by the people. But there is no way anyone can convince me that a president that is handpicked and totally controlled by the prime minister and his inner circle is somehow Jamaica’s great inevitable destiny, if that is what we call destiny then it’s a very low bar indeed. This is the same kind of mindset as those who seek public office so they can be somebody instead of those who seek office so they can actually do something. In other words, this is having a president for the sake a having a president, a useless proposition as we already have a governor-general serving the same function.

Another criticism I would like to address is those who point to fact that we already have a homegrown governor-general to justify the transition to a presidency. The logic behind this argument goes something like this, from Sir Clifford Campbell onward, Jamaicans have served in the office of governor-general and have done well with this position therefore this means we are ready to move to having a president. This line of thought is faulty from the very start as it incorrectly assumes an inherently superior nature of a presidential office over a viceregal one. However, anyone who looks outside this prism will see the obvious loopholes. The fact that several great Jamaican statesmen have been appointed to the office of the governor-general and excelled at it, does not justify switching to a presidency, on the contrary it justifies the continuation of the office of governor-general because we have Jamaicans that have proven they are perfectly capable and competent enough to step into the shoes of literal royalty and function as a king would, that is not a boast that any president can make, only the King’s representative is capable of such bragging rights. Should that be a cause of shame or despair for us? Not at all, I consider it a matter of pride that we have such caliber of men (and hopefully women in the future) who would have served us so faithfully in said capacity. This whole idea of the governor-general being an agent of the UK is totally false because the UK government has nothing to with the GG, he is purely Jamaican the literal embodiment of constitutional and royal legitimacy at the apex of our government, appointed by the Sovereign of Jamaica on the advice of our parliament. This idea that fulfilling our destiny means switching this out in favour a presidency is a made-up idea that holds no water except in the minds of those making the argument.

In the end, I write this letter as patriot who loves this country and wants to see it thrive, however my idea of thriving is not and has never been tied to having a president, especially not a puppet president who is supposedly independent who is anything but. I am aware that those who are all in on the “road to republic” project also see themselves as patriots and no doubt will view those who oppose them as agents of the British. But I’m not here to advocate for the British, I’m here to advocate for Jamaica, for the monarchy of Jamaica and for the constitution of Jamaica as bequeathed to us by our forefathers (not by the British) on our independence. Our destiny is not written is stone like some mysterious runic prophecy and our destiny is certainly not what the ruling class tells us that is, they have their agenda but the power doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to us and I can find no clearer of displaying that than by us rejecting their road to republic.