Rules for thee but not for me

 

There is a fundamental question that I would very much like to have answered, what is the rules-based international order? Why such a question you might ask, because the International Criminal Court has finally decided to issue warrants for the arrest of leaders of both Israel and Hamas over the humanitarian crisis going on in Gaza; this comes on the heels of an International Court of Justice ruling that a genocide was indeed taking place in that part of the world.  This is but the second incident in which the ICC has acted in this manner recently, it issued similar warrants for the arrest of Russian President Vladimir Putin for the ongoing situation in Ukraine. That was not the first time that a European leader had been charged with war crimes by an international tribunal, this also happened at the Nuremburg trials that took place after World War II. Such incidents however are exception to the rule as international criminal law has a tendency to target leaders from the Global South such as Bashar Al-Assad of Syria or Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan, leading to criticisms of the courts being biased.

And speaking of criticism, it did not take long for Israel and their US allies challenge this decision on account of bias. This charge however has no merit whatsoever as the ICC warrants have been equally applied to both Israeli and Hamas leaders. This application of the rules in an equitable manner has not satisfied the critics like US President Joe Biden and his Secretary of State Anthony Blinken who have made the argument that it is “wrong” to apply equivalence to the actions of Israel and those of Hamas. The logic behind such an argument goes that because Israel is the “only democracy” in the Middle East then treating it as a pariah state is wrong. I however would argue that since Israel claims to be a democracy then it should be judged by the standard of what is expected of a democracy and when it falls short, it should be held accountable like any other nation. Democracy is inherently linked with the rule of law, yet the argument put forward by Israel and its allies is that the Zionist state should not be subject to the same rules as its adversaries.

On the matter of adversaries, I would like to draw a sharp contrast between how US reacted to the ICC’s warrants against Netanyahu as opposed to the one issued against Putin. The United States in the past has a tendency to be very supportive of international court rulings when applied to their enemies such as the Russians, however as soon as Israel is the one placed on the microscope then all of a sudden the legitimacy and even the integrity of the court is called into question. One of the most egregious examples of this comes directly from the Netanyahu himself who called the court anti-Semitic for daring to hold him accountable. This is hardly the first time he has made such a claim, using that same rhetoric to refer to South Africa when it brought its genocide case before the ICC. He also said something similar regarding protesters around the world calling for justice for the Palestinian people. In fact, one can see it almost as a pattern of the Israeli Prime Minister where every critic is called a neo-Nazi sympathizer. How can Israel plausibly refer to itself as a democracy when it uses such ugly language to smear anyone that dares criticize it?

Israel is not alone in this however as the United States has also taken a similar stance to refer to critics of Israel and its ongoing offensive against the people of Gaza. A week before the warrants were issued, a group of US Republican senators issued threats to staff members of the ICC wishing to impose heavy penalties should they follow through on issuing the warrants. This act of bullying would be clearly unacceptable in other context and quite frankly it is rather disturbing that the same US that commonly refers to its enemies like Putin and Assad as thugs, now has some of its most senior congress members openly and blatantly intimidating court officials and staff in the exercise of their judicial functions.

 If all of this was not already bad enough, some of the most hardline Zionists in the US have even advocated for the US to invoke The Hague Invasion Act (HIA) to deal with the ICC should they attempt to bring Netanyahu or other Israeli leaders to justice. The HIA claims to give the US Armed Forces the “right” to take military action to rescue any US personnel who being held by the ICC. This act has never actually been exercised but the very fact that it even exists on the books is telling as such an action would require the US to invade the sovereign territory of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, a democracy and a NATO ally, an act which clear violates the North Atlantic Charter. The fact that some in the US would advocate using this method to violate international law to defend persons who are not even US citizens sends a clear message that they see themselves as being above the rules based international order.  

Another talking point that demonstrates the hypocrisy of the US and Israel is the argument regarding jurisdiction. According to the US and Israel, the ICC has no jurisdiction because Israel is not a signatory of the Rome Statute. This argument falls flat for two reasons, first of all, the Rome Statute in Article 13 states that once ONE of the affected party is a signatory to the statute then the ICC does have jurisdiction and in this case Palestine is a signatory to the statute therefore its jurisdiction in this matter is perfectly legal. Secondly, the same US which claims that Israel is exempt from ICC rules had no problem supporting the ICC warrant against Putin for the Ukraine War although in that case neither Russia nor Ukraine were signatories of the Rome Statute which means that the ICC genuinely had no jurisdiction there.  US stance on the ICC’s case against Netanyahu is rooted in its decision to refuse to recognize Palestinian statehood which in their view makes Palestine’s signature of the statute illegitimate. However, it must be pointed out that the US is not the arbiter of international law and in an environment where more and more countries are increasingly recognizing the legitimacy of a Palestinian state, its competence to sign the Rome Statute is therefore perfectly legal.

In a democratic world order, all are meant to be equal, but clearly some are more equal than others, which goes against the very spirit of a rules-based international order in the first place. Idea that some nations can pick and choose when to apply rules, how to apply rules and who the rules apply to are all clear signs of a broken system. There can be no justice in the world, so long as law is not respected by all, otherwise what we end up with as a two-tiered hypocritical system where the rules can “apply to thee but not to me” .

Constitutional Kerfuffle: Republic or Democracy

 

I have following the recent discussions going on re the Constitutional Reform Committee where it has come to light that the opposition People’s National Party has refused to sign the final recommendations of the committee due to its dissention regarding whether our final appellate jurisdiction should be retained by the Judicial Committee of His Majesty’s Privy Council or be transferred to the Caribbean Court of Justice.

The disagreement lies in what the opposition sees a haphazard approach to reform in that the current ruling Jamaica Labour Party wishes to separate the issue of the head of state from that of the final court. In the PNP’s view, it is impossible to do one without the other but the JLP does not see it that way. This has led to great debate as to whether or not, it is possible for both to be done simultaneously, with no clear settlement on the matter. My own position is somewhat similar to the government’s position to have them separated however my version would have us getting rid of the Privy Council but retaining the monarchy which is exactly what Canada, Australia and New Zealand have all done so there is plenty of precedent for such a stance.

To further complicate the debate is the matter of timeline. If the government had it gotten its way earlier, all of this would have taken place before the monarchy had even changed hands in 2022 from Elizabeth II to Charles III. The timeline then shifted to 2025 when we are due to have our next general election but therein lies another problem as we would have to hold a popular referendum which is unlikely to take place in that time window, therefore the time would have to go beyond that unless we go the Barbados route.

And what is the Barbados route?, you might ask,  That is where the government unilaterally changes the constitution without asking the people’s permission at all. No doubt there are some who would love for this to be the case given the history of referenda in the region? What history is that? Currently, Dominica, Barbados, Guyana and Trinidad, all made the transition from realm to republic. While Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana and St. Lucia have moved from the JCPC to the CCJ. In every single one of those cases, these changes have been done without calling a referendum. Conversely, the monarchy referendum in St Vincent (2009) and the final court referenda in Antigua (2018) and Grenada (2018) all flopped with the population voting in favour of the status quo.

 How you interpret these events is dependent entirely on your point of view, do you value democracy more than republicanism? or do you think republican aspirations should override the democratic will of the people? Because contrary to what we are told, the two are not synonymous, especially not when we are so often told that having a president is more democratic than having The King yet in countries like Barbados, Dominica and Trinidad, presidents are selected and not elected. To further emphasize the point, I cannot help but notice an area of democratic deficit that no one wishes to talk about. It stems from the fact that when both Barbados and Trinidad became republics, neither country had a viable opposition. Starting with Trinidad, upon independence in 1962, the People's National Movement was already the established party in power with an established grip that it continued to hold for decades culminating in the 1971 general elections where it won more than 80% of the seats in parliament, therefore by the time it established the republic in 1976, there was no entity in the country that could challenge its decision given that its main rival the United National Congress was not established until 1989, well after Trinidad became a republic. Similarly, in Barbados, Mia Mottley’s Barbados Labour Party in the 2018 general election won 100% of the seats in the Bajan Assembly and 3 years later they unilaterally ushered in a republic. The trend here is quite obvious, in both cases the government had no real opposition party to hold it accountable and it both cases there was no popular vote on the matter. Contrast this with the case of St Vincent in 2009 where there was not only a referendum but also where the government had only 55% of seats in parliament meaning there was still viable opposition. Given this history, it should come as no surprise that in Jamaica where we pride ourselves on having a strong opposition as a counterweight to the ruling party that the CRC has ended up with this result. All the talk about how other Caribbean countries have managed to “accomplish” republicanism has never once accounted for the fact that governments were only able to remove The Crown when they had no democratic oversight to prevent them from messing with the constitution in the first place, but that will not be the case in a robust democracy such as ours.

Some would argue that this is less about democracy and more about our sovereignty. I, however would take a different approach by carefully examining this argument and if it has any merit. The common mantra goes that only by replacing His Majesty with a president can we be truly sovereign. But is that argument true?,  first of all let us explore what sovereignty means. According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, for a state to be sovereign, it must satisfy four conditions

i.                     a permanent population;

ii.                   a defined undisputed territory;

iii.                 government capable of exercising sovereignty and having a monopoly of the legitimate use of force;

iv.                 the capacity to enter into relations with the other states and be recognized by them.

So my question is, are there any grounds to suggest that Jamaica is lacking in any of these four areas?  Is there any country on earth that disputes Jamaica’s right to exist as an independent entity in the international community due to the lack of president? I can think of several countries who has disputed sovereignty issues such as Palestine, Taiwan and Kosovo and yet they are all republics with presidents. Clearly then there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that The King makes us less independent and a president would make us more independent. That is but the story that republicans have told themselves (and the rest of us) to justify their own political leanings.

The CRC has once again hit a roadblock which means any attempt by the government to rush through a change in our constitution as it likes will not happen, Jamaica is not Barbados and Andrew Holness is not Mia Mottley. I have no doubt that should the government change at the next general election, the PNP will try to push through its own version of constitutional reform which will face opposition from the JLP therefore unless one party gains control of all 63 seats, our sacred founding document will remain intact, a prospect that no doubt fills republicans with dread. But having seen what took place in our sister islands, it makes me value our democracy even more and I am proud to say that I prize that far more than I do any republican sentiment.

Israel is a problem: Let’s acknowledge it

 

I know the things I’m about to say in this piece will get me branded as an anti-Semite but some things need to be said. We all know what happened on October 7 when Israel was attacked by the forces of Hamas and like the rest of the world at the time, I also stood in full solidarity with Israel in its dark hour. But the response of Israel since then has caused me take a very different view of the Jewish state. As we speak, the Israeli Defence Force acting on orders from Zionist-in-Chief Netanyahu has been on a mission to clean out the Gaza Strip of the Palestinian presence. The mission, ostensibly, is to get rid of Hamas once and for all. But as the world knows by now, Hamas fighters are not the ones really being harmed. The bulk of those killed are innocent civilians and those whose lives are not taken, still have their livelihoods destroyed by the indiscriminate bombing of the IDF.

Yes, you read that correct, indiscriminate. Contrary to the lies put out by Israel, there has been no real effort to limit civilian casualties even as the world continues to stand by. A fact made crystal clear to all when South Africa boldly called out Israel for genocide and took them to the International Court of Justice. Instead of ruling decisively, the UN took the middle ground by trying to appease everyone but they failed to address the most important point by ordering a ceasefire, instead making the case that Israel was possibly guilty of genocide while not saying anything definitive. This ruling while celebrated in many quarters ultimately meant nothing because there is no point in telling Israel to “limit casualties” without telling them to cease hostilities entirely. It is little wonder that the utility of the United Nations is being questioned when it is clear that they are entirely toothless, gutless and spineless displaying cowardice in the face of this affront to humanity by the State of Israel who continues to operate an apartheid regime.

And speaking of Apartheid, I must question why does the “international community” stand by and allow Israel to commit such wanton violation of international law that they would never excuse if it were any other country? All we hear Israel’s apologists talk about is Israel’s right to exist and Israel’s right to defend itself. But what about Palestine’s right to exist? what about Palestine’s right to defend itself? We often hear that it is anti-Semitic” to utter the “from the River to the Sea” chant but somehow when Benjamin Netanyahu literally uses that very phrase to explain his plan for ethnic cleansing of Gaza, no one bats an eyelid.

I hate to break it to the Zionist supporters out there but the purpose of the state is to serve the welfare of all its people and any state that only serves one class of its citizens at the expense of others, does NOT have the right to exist. There is no justification for the creation and perpetuation of a Jewish state in the Holy Land when that state is based on the idea that European descended Jews have a God-given right to the land whereas African descended Jews from Ethiopia and Eritrea are sterilized to prevent them from procreating. A better solution would have been the creation of secular state where Jewish Palestinians, Muslim Palestinians and Christian Palestinians could live side by side in peace. Interestingly enough, King Hussein of Jordan had once made that very proposal once only to be rebuffed, perhaps it would have been wiser to listen to the late Arab monarch but in the light of strong Zionist ambition to claim everything “from the River to the Sea”, this was not meant to be.

The Western world, particularly the US continues to bandy the idea about of a two-state solution to solve the problem, but this, like the ICJ ruling is an empty gesture because Israel has made it clear that they have no intention of allowing the Palestinians the dignity of establishing their own sovereign state. In any other scenario, when faced with opposition to their foreign policy goals, the US would often resort to harsher methods of negotiation in order achieve their objective. What has the US done in response to this defiance by Israel? Have they tried anything to get Israel to change course as they would in any other case? Not at all, they gave them full backing to continue assaulting Gaza, a policy that has been supported by the majority of both Democrats and Republicans with those opposing it being branded as either far left (Democrats) or far right (Republicans). I would posit however that it is the anti-war extremists in both parties and are correct while the mainstream alliance of neo-liberal and neo-conservative war hawks that are the problem. And then to compound this, when Houthis from Yemen proceeded to block sea lanes to prevent Israel from being rearmed to commit more genocide, the US and its NATO allies proceeded to bomb Yemen (a poor country with limited resources) in order to strong-arm the Houthis to break the blockade. By doing so, the message of NATO was clear, shipping routes matter more to them than the lives of innocents being slaughtered by the score and all this to protect Israel’s “right” to commit more human rights violations. It should be noted that it would not have taken much for the US to get Israel to change course, all they would have to do is cut both financial and military aid to Israel until they comply. After all, since they were willing to use force to get the Houthis to break the blockade, then they can very well use sanctions to get the Zionist to break the siege and thus the failure of the Biden admin to do so, renders them complicit.

Israel has long hidden behind the Holocaust as a shield to justify their crimes, but anyone paying attention should realise that what Israel is doing is NOT self-defence, the UN charter in Article 2iv and Chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter sets out clear rules for which use of force can be justified and what the Zionist state is doing has gone well beyond that. It is high time that the world treat Israel as the pariah that it is. Israel is NOT special (bear in mind that the 1948 Zionist state is not the same as the Davidic Kingdom of the Old Testament) and Israel is NOT above the law of nations. Every nation is obliged to abide the rules and norms of International law such as the UN Charter and as long as the Zionist state continues to act with impunity the world should not coddle them but acknowledge in clear and no uncertain terms that Israel is a problem.

Venezuela Land Grab

 

Something rather bizarre happened recently. The Maduro administration in Venezuela took it upon themselves to host a referendum to decide the fate of the Essequibo region, which was approved by 95% of voters. While democratic processes are all good and well, the problem here however is that Essequibo is not part of Venezuela but part of Guyana and has been that way for nearly two centuries. The root of this dispute can be traced back to colonial competition between Britain and Spain. According to the Venezuelans, after declaring their independence from Spain in 1819, the Essequibo region that was (in their view) originally Spanish automatically became theirs under the successor state principle of international law. The problem is that this is a false justification because Spain never held undisputed sovereignty over the region but instead was faced with constant competition with its rivals namely Britain, France and the Netherlands. Sometime in the course of the dispute, the other contenders withdrew to the eastern part of the Guianas region leading to the formation of Suriname (former Dutch Guiana) and French Guiana, leaving only the Brits who maintained effective control of the region later combining the colonies of Essequibo, Berbice and Demarara in 1831 to form British Guiana (which became Guyana in 1966).  Venezuela also became its own country for the first time in 1831, having previously been a part of the Republic of Gran Colombia (itself formed from the Spanish Viceroyalty of New Granada) for just over 12 years following a separation from Spain. The point of this background is to show that at no time was the Essequibo region ever under the effective control of either New Granada or Gran Colombia, as  two polities never held real control of the region.

Enter Venezuela, the new country formed from the split of the first Bolivarian republic. Like Spain and Gran Colombia before it, they also claimed that Essequibo was rightfully theirs. They even went as far as attempting to evoke the Munroe Doctrine. By all rights, a policy that was unilaterally crafted by the US government has no standing among the law of nations and cannot be used as justification to claim anything. Nevertheless, the US doing what it does best, decided to insert itself and insisted that the only way to settle this “peacefully” was by arbitration of a neutral court, they said this thinking to  catch the UK in a trap. This move backfired spectacularly on both Venezuela and their American allies (this was before the Hugo Chavez era) when in 1899 the court ruled in no uncertain terms that territory was part of British Guiana.

While initially accepting the ruling, Venezuela changed its mind in the 1960s to challenge the veracity of the court’s judgement, but truthfully it is this referendum held by Maduro that has no validity. Venezuela can wail all it likes about the court ruling in favour of a colonial power back then, the truth is that the current dispute is not with colonial Britain but with the modern independent state of Guyana. Like Venezuela, Guyana also uses the principle of the successor state to justify its sovereign right over the region. Unlike Venezuela, Guyana has exercised jurisdiction over the Essequibo region since it gained independence and as such legally speaking, the region is rightfully theirs by virtue of the 1899 ruling and 1966 Guyana Independence Act. And speaking of 1966, Venezuela actually tried to stall the Guyanese independence effort with the Geneva Agreement which insists on having the issue revisited by a UN Commission before Guyana could be granted full independence. Although both British and Guyanese leaders signed the agreement for further discussion to take place, it did not forestall Guyanese independence as Venezuela had hoped, which means that when Guyana raised its own flag for the first time, Essequibo was part of its territory.

What all of this means is that Venezuela for the longest while has accepted de facto Guyanese jurisdiction over the region, so the question now is what changed? One might expect the answer to be very complicated but the truth is that it is very simple: oil. Recently, thanks to the efforts of oil giant Exxon Mobil, oil reserves was discovered off the coast of Guyana. According to estimates, these reserves would put Guyana closer to Kuwait, outstripping Venezuela by far as biggest oil producer in the region, it was this and only this that caused Caracas to all of a sudden pick up where it left off in the 19^th century.  Let us be clear, for all the talk of a “need for justice” or the fabrications of any imagined wrongs done to Venezuela in the past, these are little more than smokescreens to mask the true intentions of the Bolivarian Republic, their real agenda has always been about gaining more territory to take advantage of Guyana’s oil discovery. This should be worrying for two reasons, 1. Venezuela has oil reserves of its own already and it has not done very well in managing them to the benefits of its people and 2. Given their obvious lack of frugality in handling their own oil reserves, why should they be given more oil resources to mismanage?

There are not much shades of grey here, it is cut and dry, a larger nation is being quite open its desire to annex two-thirds of a country that it is less than half of its size, in other words this is a land grab. This so-called vote is illegal in every sense of the word as the right of conquest was outlawed by the UN Charter of 1945. I find it ironic that Venezuela attempts to use democracy as justification for this while ignoring the fact that a vote cannot be valid if the persons doing the voting are not the persons who are to affected by the vote, in other words it is not the place of the Venezuelan people to decide what should happen to two-thirds of Guyana’s land, something that the International Court of Justice was adamantly clear on. Quite frankly, the actions of the Bolivarian regime are grossly hypocritical for two reasons 1. They claim that Guyana’s claim is not legitimate because it was inherited from colonial Britain, but Venezuela itself used colonial Spain to justify their own claim and 2. Maduro himself has struggled with the idea of an external power challenging his legitimacy as the US has repeated tried to install the puppet Juan Guaido in his place. How then can he not see the irony of his own government acting as an external power imposing itself on a smaller nation, when that is exactly the kind of struggle they are having with the US only in reverse?

In the end, there are no “both sides” argument here as there are in some international disputes. The international community (especially CARICOM and the Commonwealth) should stand by Guyana and let Venezuela know that Guyana’s territorial integrity must be respected. The fate of Essequibo is non-negotiable and any attempt to alter it should be met with swift and decisive action proportional to the extent that Caracas is prepared to go to pursue this false claim. The world is in enough chaos as it is, the last thing we need is another unnecessary war especially not against one of our sister states in the Commonwealth Caribbean. Therefore, every effort must be made for cooler heads to prevail, this dispute (which should not even be a dispute to begin with) has gone far enough and it is high time for the government in Venezuela to focus on cleaning up its own messy situation, dial down on the inflammatory rhetoric and leave Guyana alone.

Evangelical's Mistaken Zionism

 

Like most people I watched with shock and horror, the recent spate of violence that has taken hold of the Holy Land where the Israeli Defence Force and the Palestinian militant group Hamas have once again gone to war. And like so many times before, we have been faced with the decades-old question of who is on the right side of this conflict. Some would argue that Israel is in the right as they are defending their country from radical jihadists who after their latest attack over the weekend have certainly earned the world’s ire. Others would point to the disproportionate nature of Israel’s response as overkill given that ultimately the actions of the IDF often leave more Palestinian civilians dead especially women and children while Hamas lives on to fight another day. These two simplistic viewpoints are precisely the problem which is why I think it is time that we reject this nonsense of trying to figure out who the “good guys” are and instead see this war for what is truly is. There are no heroes here, only villains on both sides and opposing the murderous and vicious actions of one side should not be seen as supporting the murderous and vicious actions of the other. This in truth is no different from a feud that takes place between two rival criminal gangs, who would be in the right there? Clearly everyone should be able to decipher that this is a conflict of evil vs evil, the only “good guys” here, are the civilians be they Jewish or Muslim who get caught in the crossfire of a war they want no part of.

With all that said, I find it somewhat disturbing that many evangelical Christians would look on the scale of brutality and give tacit support to Israel although it should be clear that the actions of the IDF are every bit as atrocious as those committed by Hamas. How is it that persons who can clearly see that the actions of the Palestinians fighters are amoral cannot see that that Israel’s military is exactly the same? This stems of course from a grave misconception that sees the Zionist state as God’s chosen nation. Let me preface this part by saying that I myself, am a bible believing Christian who is very familiar with the story of Biblical Israel however I refuse to believe that the modern State of Israel as the same country as the ancient Kingdom of Israel. One was established by God himself as a theocracy ruled by the Royal House of David, the other was established by the United Nations as a secular republic, therefore any notion that modern day Zionist Jews have a divine claim to the land should be rejected.

 

Those familiar with the book of Genesis would know the story of Abraham who is the father of both Ishmael (ancestor of the Arabs) and Isaac (ancestor of the Jews). In the book, it was stated that the now disputed land (then known of Canaan) would be held by Abraham’s descendants in perpetuity. The Evangelical interpretation of this text is that this can only apply to Israel. However, given that the Kingdom of Judea was dismantled in 70 A.D. by the Romans and the State of  Israel was not established until 1948, that leaves a very large gap in time. If Evangelical Churches believe that the prophecy is accurate, they would to account for this period. The only logical conclusion that can come from this, is that the prophecy would have to refer to all of Abraham’s descendants including the Palestinians; that is if they wish to be theologically consistent.  Therefore, Evangelicals cannot use the words of Genesis 22:17 to justify the Zionists state because that is not what the prophecy actually states.

 

 

Don’t mistake my intention here, this is not an attack on Jewish people per se but rather confusion as to why Evangelicals continue to support Zionists while completely ignoring the genuine pain and suffering that they are causing the civilians of Palestine, who will feel the full force of Israel’s wrath far more than Hamas ever will. How is it that the same people who were so quick to condemn Hamas for its attack of innocent Israeli civilians (a condemnation which I fully support), are now so reluctant to do the same when Israel’s defence minister Yoav Gallant announces a complete siege of Gaza with no food, water, fuel or electricity for the people living there? How can they not see that this a clear humanitarian crisis?

And speaking of humanitarian crisis, the comments I have seen in several Evangelical circles always seem to focus on the idea that Israel is God’s chosen people but I have a problem accepting that in this Christian Era, the Jews still deserve such a designation. Evangelical Christians who believe this would then have to grapple with the question of the church’s relevance, after all if God has already pre-selected the Jews then what purpose would Christendom serve? Evangelicals would also have seriously examine the Jewish view on Christ because unlike the Christian Church, the Jewish religion rejects the idea of Jesus as Messiah or even the doctrine of the Holy Trinity which includes Christ. It is therefore perplexing that Evangelicals would find religious affinity with a group whose theology fundamentally opposes everything taught in the New Testament.

This is exacerbated by the erroneous theology regarding the construction of a “Third Temple” to replace the one destroyed in 70 A.D. This theology has long been a tenet of Rabbinical Judaism (hence the emphasis they place on the Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall) and has been subsequently adopted by Evangelical Christians who are sympathetic to the Zionist cause. This idea however, is nothing less than a dangerous heresy, not only was this never taught by Christ, the Apostles or the Early Church Fathers, Jesus himself directly addresses and debunks this idea in Matthew 24:2 when he accurately predicted the destruction of the temple but said nothing about it ever being rebuilt. Furthermore, scripture reinforces the idea that a Third Temple will never rise as told by the Apostle John in Revelation 21:22. Zionist Jews might be forgiven for their mistaken belief in a Third Temple as they openly reject the New Testament anyway but what excuse do Evangelicals have for the same error when they should know better? They cannot claim to be accurately to be following the New Testament and also believe in the legitimacy of the Zionist cause at the same time because one naturally precludes the other.

With all this said, let me reiterate, it is perfectly OK to stand with the Palestinian people without supporting the terrorist activities of the brutish and violent Hamas who not only despicably target Israeli civilians but only also use their own fellow Palestinians as human shields, Hamas is little more than a cohort of sniveling cowards with their tactics and in no way should they ever be seen as “liberators” as some anti-Semites try to claim. But on the other hand, believing in Israel’s right to exist does not mean that it should come at the cost of collateral damage to the people (especially women and children) who are now cut off from basic services because of the actions of Jihadists. But most of all, this is most certainly not time for some elements in Christendom to take sides against one set of victims because of erroneous teaching, therefore the Church should reject Zionism and be reminded of the words of the Apostle Paul who says in Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Gentile……. for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

The change we really need

 

Sometime last year, the government of Jamaica announced that would begin the process of becoming a republic, removing the late Queen Elizabeth II and replace her with a president.  Since that announcement was made, the passing of the Queen and the accession of King Charles III has served to accelerate the ambitions of the government to alter the constitution.  In order to push this agenda forward, the government has established the Constitutional Reform Committee as the body that will guide the process. When originally formed, many persons were of the opinion that the CRC will be looking at a complete overhaul of the constitution. However, it should be clear to everyone by now that the CRC’s only aim at the movement is the usurpation of the Crown, but little else will change. I for one was not surprised that this is the angle that the government is taking, given that this is exactly what Barbados did in 2021, the only difference  is that whereas they rushed it, we seem to taking our time to mull over all the implications.

 This state of affairs has caused ire among some who want a complete overhaul of the constitution, those who make such an argument tend to favour the US style presidential model. Some even go as far as to make the argument that adopting such a model would make it more “Jamaicanised”. This thinking however is plainly baseless as one cannot reasonably argue that the form of government we have held since independence is not really Jamaican but somehow adopting an American form of government is more Jamaican. It is clearly a logical fallacy to even suggest such a thing, yet is exactly what its proponents seem to believe, albeit without evidence. And in addition, contrary to the propaganda from the American media, the presidential system is actually inferior to the Westminster parliametary model and comes with a host of problems such as an inherently divisive head of state who can never be a unifying figure, to having a cabinet that is not accountable to parliament and don’t even get started on the gridlock that takes place when the executive and legislature are at loggerheads and can’t get anything done. Let us not be fooled by the rhetoric, there is a reason why most developed countries opt for parliamentary systems as seen in cases like Canada, Japan, Australia, and the Nordic Countries whereas the United States is the only first world country that uses the presidential model, because every other country that uses this system has been less successful, simply put USA is the exception, not the rule.

 With that being said however, supporters of a Jamaican republic are of the opinion that removing The King and replacing him with a president (be he elected or appointed) will improve governance as according to them, the current system is not working. The truth is that while they are correct in identifying that a problem exists, their diagnosis and proposed solution is incorrect. If anything is holding our political system back, it is not the monarchy, but rather the bi-partisan duopoly.  For the last 61 years, the head of the House of Windsor has held the Sovereign’s position in this country, however the business of government has been done in the King’s (formerly Queen’s) name by the Jamaica Labour Party and the Peoples National Party, it is they who have alternated in holding the reigns of state power and replacing the monarch with a president will not change this.

The truth is that it will be of little consequence if we change to any republic be it presidential or parliamentary, if the ruling class remains where they are unchecked and unchallenged. If Jamaica wants to improve its  governance, a republic is not the answer, instead the real solution lies in having a multi-party system that will give the JLP and PNP a run for their money. A multi-party democracy is one that comes with several benefits including:

 Having a wider base of opinions instead of merely two camps (which are sometimes indistinguishable);

It will be much harder for any single party to have an outright majority in parliament, which would necessitate the formation of coalitions;

Coalitions when formed will have to work together for the national good instead of partisan interest;

It will create a dramatic shift in our political culture, where persons will be less loyal to political parties and thus break the stranglehold of some MPs who are far too comfortable in their seats while have little impact in their constituencies.

I am not ignorant of the fact that third parties have been attempted before with not much success, but that is no reason to give up on the idea especially if it can help enhance democracy as is seen in many other countries that have multi-party parliamentary systems such as Germany, New Zealand and Ireland.  The truth is that having such a system would keep the government in check since in order for coalitions to remain intact, all parties in a ruling coalition would need to cooperate for the best interest of the nation. Others might argue that the best to keep the government in line is the development of an Office of President with broad powers to safeguard the constitution. But that begs the question, what need is there to develop presidential powers for such a purpose when it is just as possible to have the royal prerogatives of the Governor-General serve the same purpose? that is unless of course they want to admit that they deliberately made Crown very weak in order to replace it with a presidency and if so, that would point to them sabotaging our constitution from the start.

And speaking of sabotage, is it also possible that the JLP and PNP are also fully aware that this suggestion might indeed be answer that we are looking for but instead have chosen to point fingers at the monarchy in order to distract from their own failings over the last 61 years? Let’s face it, who has the most to gain from scapegoating the late Queen and the current King? Who has the most to gain from the maintenance of the current duopoly? Who has the most to lose if Jamaica should adopt a more multi-partisan approach to politics?  The answer to these questions is clearly the JLP and the PNP. And as for becoming a republic, who has the most to lose if that should happen? Is it the royal family? Not at all, they will still have Britain, Canada, Australia etc. so they will lose very little, we on the other hand will be the ultimate losers on that score as all we would really be doing is strengthen the duopoly’s hold on all the institutions of this country, this is what we should oppose with all our might. The government as it stands is dangerously overreaching and the last thing we should do is encourage it.

It is on this basis that I posit that the change that Jamaica truly needs is exactly the one that the ruling class does not wish to give us. At the end of the day what should matter most is not who has what government title but rather how the country is governed and the contrary to the propaganda shoved down our throats, a president is not what this country needs as that would be cosmetic, but what we need is  to have a more participatory democracy where multiple parties and multiple viewpoints are heard, this is what will truly alter the state of politics in the country so we can finally fulfil our national destiny before God and all mankind in playing our part of advancing the whole human race.

Monarchy vs a Corrupt Republic: Part 3

 

 

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