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.