On the matter of sovereignty.

 

Recently, as is traditional every year in the first week of August, we celebrated our national festivals of Emancipation and Independence. This normally a time when pride in the black, green and gold is at its height, when we all get into that patriotic spirit of revelling in what it means to be Jamaican and to enjoy the trappings of nationhood.  Yet there are those who would make the claim that Jamaica is not sovereign and they’re not saying because they think are economically trapped with high debt nor are they saying it because they think we are under some kind of siege from some violent external force. Their sole reason for asserting that Jamaica is not fully sovereign is because we do not have a president.

Why this the standard that these people choose for determining who has sovereignty and who does not?  The logic behind it rests on the assumption that the world only recognizes a country as sovereign if it has a president. This of course is not even remotely true as I can point to several countries where that is most certainly NOT the case. Take for example Taiwan, a country which has had presidents since 1949 yet majority of the world denies that Taiwan is sovereign due to the One China Policy that requires them to recognize that Taiwan is part of China, the fact that they have a president makes no difference. Then there is South Ossetia, a country in eastern Europe which has had several presidents since 1991, yet their sovereignty is also in dispute, again the fact they have a president doesn’t not guarantee them international recognition as an independent state.  There is also Catalonia which had declared its independence from Spain unilaterally and tried getting the world to recognize it as a sovereign nation. It should be noted that Spain does have a monarchy, but the Catalans choose not to recognize King Felipe VI as head of state but opted instead to have a president. This fact made no difference whatsoever to the internationally community who could care less that Catalonia had a president, it still was not counted as a marker of sovereignty.  And of course, I could not help but bring up the case of Palestine, a country recognized by some but not all. A country that is fighting not only for recognition but its very existence. The Palestinian Authority which in theory has jurisdiction is again not universally recognized notwithstanding the fact it has republican structure headed by a president.

Now that we have established that merely having a president, does not sovereignty make, let us look at the alternative that they wish to replace i.e. the governor-general. The so-called common wisdom goes that by having a governor-general we are telling the world that we are not fully independent. But is that so? Currently, there are only 14 countries that have a governor-general and all of them are members of the Commonwealth.  These countries range from extremely larger nations such as Canada to very small countries such as Saint Kitts. Yet one thing they have in common is the fact they are all recognized as sovereign in the international community. We saw this clearly when President Trump threatened to annex Canada and make it America’s 51^st state. Such sentiments drew wide condemnation within Canada and around the world as tonnes of nations immediately affirmed their recognition of Canadian nationhood, not British sovereignty over Canada, but Canadian sovereignty as its own unique thing in the world. This was further underscored when the Canadian government invited King Charles to open parliament in person and he did so, not as a representative of anything British but as King of Canada, opening Canada’s parliament upon the free invitation of Canada’s government. No one then dared claimed that Canada was British territory or a US State, its sovereignty was fully underscored not by a president (be it Trump or any other) but by rejecting presidencies entirely in favour of the Crown. And so it is there, so it is with every other country in the Commonwealth that has a governor-general, it is not and has never been a symbol of partial sovereignty instead only fully independent members of the Commonwealth have a governor-general and those who claim otherwise have no evidence to back up such claims.

So now that we have firmly cemented that having a president doesn’t make you a sovereign state and lacking a president doesn’t deny sovereignty, let us now look at that qualifications of what are the components that define full sovereignty to see if Jamaica fulfils these criteria. For this we turn to international law.  The quintessential authorised document used by legal and academic minds is the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, which gives a pretty good grasp of how to understand this subject as even countries that are not signatories to it still use its definitions. According to Article 1 “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: (a) a permanent population; (b) a defined territory; (c) government and (d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.”  It is plain as day that Jamaica unequivocally ticks all 4 boxes.

But to further cement the point let us explore further. Article 4 states the following ‘States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise” This is important as it now calls into question as to whether Jamaica is equal to other states within the global community of nations. Can say for example, Trinidad do certain things in the international sphere that Jamaica cannot because they have a president and we don’t?  Is Dominica (a country younger than us by 16 years) more recognized among sovereign nations than we are, because they have president and we don’t? I would love to see the evidence for that.

What about Article 8 of the convention, which says “No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.”? It has been a common parlance among both the ignorant who don’t know any better and the wilfully dishonest trying to push an agenda, to claim that the governor-general is an agent of the British in Jamaica. Not only does that violate the convention but violates our own constitution. So let me make this clear, the governor-general of Jamaica is NOT an agent of the British, he represents the King OF Jamaica, IN Jamaica, let me point to some excerpts from our constitution to underscore that. In Section 32, subsection 1 it says, “The Governor-General shall act in accordance with the advice of the Cabinet or a Minister acting under the general authority of the Cabinet in the exercise of his functions”. Further on in subsection 5 of the same section 32, the constitution refers to the governor-general acting on advice of the prime minister after consulting the leader of the opposition. In fact, every single time that the constitution mentions the governor-general acting on advice or on directive, it is ALWAYS in reference to a Jamaican. There is not a single clause in the constitution that directs the governor-general to act on the basis of any authority that isn’t Jamaican, those who claim otherwise need to reread our constitution, they’ll find no proof to support their assertions.

There is zero evidence whatsoever that declaring ourselves a republic will raise our standing in the world as there is not a single country that does not already recognize Jamaican sovereignty. The only people who are loudly proclaiming that Jamaica isn’t already a free, sovereign and independent nation are those inside with agenda to overthrow our constitution and replace it one of their own making. Jamaica’s independence was declared on August 6, 1962, and contrary to the untruths put out by republicans, it wasn’t a mere stepping stone on a stage to “true independence” but rather it was and still is our true independence, that proud day when our glorious flag was raised and our soul stirring anthem was played. That night on midnight August 6, we sent a message to world, Jamaica is here, a full-fledged nation, a parliamentary democracy, a constitutional monarchy and a proud member of the community of nations through our membership of the UN, The Commonwealth, The OAS, CARICOM and a host of other international organizations. The idea spread by some that having a governor-general instead of a president makes us less of a nation, is frankly incredulous at best and treasonous at worse since it is their way of attempting to get us the Jamaican people to question who we are.

At the end of day, we Jamaicans already know who we are, we have never needed a president to confirm it before, and we don’t need one now. Some say becoming a republic will honour our ancestors, but I would remind them  that it was those same ancestors who drafted the constitution that we have now. We honour our fore-parents therefore not by turning away from their legacy but by embracing it. If they wanted a republic, they had a chance to do so and the fact they rejected it should tell us of the wisdom of their choice. I can think of no better way to honour their memories than to keep what they gave to us. What they did to get us to independence was well done and to suggest that it wasn’t, is an insult to their memories. Their struggle was to make Jamaica, free, sovereign and independent and they succeed. Our struggle on the other hand is to make Jamaica, safe and prosperous, to create a Jamaica that is full alignment with the Sustainable Development Goals, and I dare say objectively speaking, a presidency is nowhere on the list of priorities, nor should it be.

Again, I reiterate my point, every single country which has a problem getting the world to recognise that they are sovereign is already a republic and already has a president. In contrast none of the 14 countries that have a governor-general acting as head of state has any issues with the world recognising their full independence. Jamaica’s sovereignty is not partial, but it is a real and complete, both in law and in fact. No platitudes from The Crown’s adversaries can change that fact, no matter how many times they claim otherwise. The lack of a presidency should not be the cause of an identity crisis, so let’s not allow those with an agenda to stir up one. There is no evidence whatsoever to claim a presidency raises our standing in the world. Everybody on the planet already knows and accepts Jamaica to be a real country, and that is a fact of which every single Jamaican both at home and in the diaspora should be immensely proud.

 

Harsh Truths About Constitutional Reform

 

There are some who would see Jamaica’s transition from a constitutional monarchy to a constitutional republic as a historic endeavour but historic does not always mean it is a step in the right direction especially since there is no evidence to contradict my long held assertion that this is becoming a republic for the sake of it just so we can have a president for the sake of it.  The loftiness of it all makes it very easy for anyone to buy into. But after doing careful examination, I am here to expose some harsh truths that those who support this shift tend to overlook.

The first point of contention is that of the final court of appeal. The current model stipulates that final appellate jurisdiction rests with the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s Privy Council. Over the last two decades there has been a debate about replacing the JCPC with the Caribbean Court of Justice. This move is one that has been made already by several Caribbean countries. The disagreement is that the government supports retaining the status quo for now while the opposition favours the change. This is somewhat confusing for several reasons. Why would an anti-royal and pro-republic government be opposed to altering the final appellate court? That makes no logical sense especially in light of two additional variables. First it is much easier to change the final court than it is change the head of state, the latter requires a referendum whereas the former does not. Second, there have been several judges who sit on the JCPC openly telling us that they would rather not hear cases from Jamaica or the rest of the Caribbean as it takes time away from their other work. In other words, the Law Lords themselves are encouraging us to join the CCJ. I have yet to hear The King or any other royal tell us that they want us gone so they can focus on their other realms, the most I’ve ever heard from The Palace is that it is a matter for the Jamaican people to decide. In light of this, it baffles the mind as to why the government is making no move towards the CCJ although that is much easier than moving us to a republic. Nor should we buy the argument about a phased approach. If that were the case then why not do the easier task first? there is literally no plebiscite required to leave the JCPC, that alone should be incentive enough.

The second concern I have is with the appointment of the president. Yes. You read that correct, appointment not election. For all this talk about Jamaica finally asserting itself as a sovereign nation, it seems as though the supreme authority will still be vested in one man. Except instead of King Charles III, it will be PM Holness, who will get the sole right to determine who the president should be. I know some will argue that the prime minister has to consult the leader of the opposition. Anybody who has read the fine print will know that the consultation will be merely a courtesy, the PM will be the final decider on who the president is. Some will argue that this is exactly how the governor-general is chosen. To such persons I would ask this question: what exactly is the material difference between a monarchy and republic? In a monarchy, sovereignty is vested in the Crown which means it is the King’s royal prerogative to ask for the Prime Minister’s advice on who to select as governor-general but in a republic it should be different, no single individual should have that power because a republican state vests sovereignty in the people. The idea that a PM can remove the actual king and yet maintain royal prerogatives akin to a king is rooted in hypocrisy. The current system works because the Crown is politically neutral and hence his representative can also be politically neutral. The government’s proposal destroys any air of political neutrality that the head of state can have. The current constitution is honest because the governor-general does not pretend to represent popular sovereignty, he represents the sovereignty of The Crown and we know this, not everyone likes it but no one is deceived into thinking it is something that is it not. The new proposal is rooted in an attempt to hoodwink the Jamaican people into thinking that the president is their representative when the truth is that he is wholly a creature of the prime minister, completely incapable of being truly neutral. This would not be because of any personal, political or moral failings on the president’s part but simply by the very nature of the way the office operates, in other words, it is a purposely built-in feature. In a country that is so heavily tribalised between supporters of both sides of the aisle, that is the last thing we need. And if anyone doubts how divided we are just look at the sharp divergence between the government and opposition to the point where the opposition has all but boycotted sitting of the parliamentary committee on this matter.

I am aware that supporters of the government’s republic agenda will criticise the opposition for refusing to participate. Some even go as far claiming that the opposition is “holding the country hostage” but that is demonstrably untrue because regardless of what the opposition does or says, the government is moving full speed ahead without them. So the opposition is not holding the country hostage at all, it is the government that is refusing to listen to anyone or anything that does not fit their agenda. For people who give lip service to democracy, they are certainly moving in an autocratic fashion but they say the monarchy is antithetical to democracy? They should look closer to home instead of throwing that charge at any else’s door

And speaking of opposition, has anyone seen the proposal for senate reform? The current system has 21 senators, 13 from the government and 8 from the opposition which means that any bill which requires a two-thirds majority would need at least one opposition senator to break ranks and join the government. The new senate being proposed would have 27 senators, 15 from the government, 9 from the government and 3 “independent” senators appointed by the president.  But as I explained earlier, the president appears neutral but is truly not which in essence means 18 senators siding with the government compared to 9 from the opposition. This means that the two-thirds protection built into the current constitution will not be a feature of the new one. No doubt the government was not counting on those with keener eyes to take notice of this cleverly disguised three card trick but it only serves to underscore the deception of this government, trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the Jamaican people who they need to buy into their propaganda. This is the reason why they are not so keen on listening to any voice that does not agree with theirs whether it be from opposition or ordinary citizens.

This brings me to my message to the Jamaican people and it is simple, we have but one chance to halt this and it is to turn out and vote no their republic. Any idea that puts forward the notion that this for the benefit of the Jamaican people is a falsehood. The truth is that the enemies of The Crown have sold us an illusion that our national pride and self-determination will be boosted by voting for their agenda, but the truth is that self-determination and national pride will be just as powerful by voting against them because that what WE THE PEOPLE decide. Our worth as Jamaicans is not rooted presidential titles or republican aspirations but rather in the fact that as a collective, we can stand up and speak truth to power, making it clear that we are wiser than they are, we see right through them and will not allow them to deceive us into give them more power to do as they like.

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.