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 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 (unlike like some in this room) 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 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

Monarchy vs a Corrupt Republic Part 2

 

The following is part two 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 point being made here is that replacing the monarch with a president will never ever enhance development but it may stifle it, depending on who is in office, I can point to solid evidence for this. In 1962, Uganda became independent with the Queen as its head of state, a year later they amended the constitution to remove the Queen however contrary to popular belief, they did NOT become a republic. Instead it became an elective monarchy where the kings of the different Ugandan tribal states would take turns as head of state with the inaugural holder of the “presidential” office being Mutesa II, Kabaka of Buganda. From 1962-1966, Uganda was noted as one of the fastest growing economies in Africa. Then in 1966, The Prime Minister decided that no kind of monarchy was good enough, not even a local based elective one and as such decided to overthrow the Kabaka in order to make himself president (this time the presidency was truly republican). Suffice it to say that this started the road to Uganda’s decline. Unlike the monarch who was already independently wealthy, both Obote and his successor Idi Amin looted the country’s coffers to enrich themselves and the nation suffered a great deal from the hands of their presidential tyrants, suffice to say that had Uganda remained a constitutional monarchy (either tied to the Commonwealth or a local elective monarchy), the executive would have never have had the power to engage in its widespread corruption as the government would have be limited by the fact of a higher authority above them. Is it any wonder that the constitutional reform agenda has no other focus? as German sociologist Max Weber once stated “Parliamentary monarchy fulfils a role which an elected president never can. It formally limits the politicians’ thirst for power because with it the supreme office of the state is occupied once and for all.”

But this discourse is not one on democracy but one on corruption, yet it is still important to point this out because if the very root of the presidential office is less than honest, everything else can be called into question. Now turning to corruption, let’s do the analysis for that one. According the latest corruption perception index, the most corrupt countries are Somalia, South Sudan, Syria and Yemen again all republics. In contrast to this, the least corrupt countries are Denmark, Finland, New Zealand, Norway and Singapore. Of these 5, 3 are still monarchies and other 2 actually became republics against their will (Finland in 1917 Russian revolution and Singapore being expelled from Malaysia in 1965).

So with that history, that begs the question, why is our government so keen on a republic? Is it to heal slavery? The gullible may believe that, but I’m not so convinced, the men who wrote our independence constitution were much closer to slavery days than we are now yet they saw it fit to give us a constitutional monarchy. Or is it they will tell you that we need to be independent. Again this argument holds no water because Jamaica is already a recognized sovereign state the world over, nor can they legitimately claim that our constitutional structure is backward because there are first world developed countries that do it as well such as Canada or Australia, so it is hardly convincing that this is about developing ourselves because a King is no hindrance to development or independence, any more than a president is a help to it. Some republicans will posit national pride as the reason and this is notion I find this most bizarre and a bit offensive and here is why? Jamaica is a beautiful country, we have so much to offer the world from our music to our sporting achievements to our unique cuisine and more, the very idea that I need someone to call Mr. President or Madam President before I can feel any pride for my country is one I utterly reject.  Thatcher saw the truth of that when she rightfully declared “Those who imagine that a politician would make a better figurehead than a hereditary monarch might perhaps make the acquaintance of more politicians.” And speaking of a figurehead especially the need for one who looks like us, I reckon we already a governor-general for serve that purpose.  The organization Monarchy New Zealand refers to a set up like ours as a “team of three” in which the power of the executive is more diffused because it is shared between three individuals, the monarch, the governor-general and the prime minister.  This arrangement works because each office helps to keep the other two in check thus power is diffused rather than fused.

 

Why does this arrangement work in a monarchy but not in a republic?  First of all, we must ask ourselves, what is the purpose of the state? Of any state?  According to Otto von Hapsburg (a former MEP and also heir to the centuries-old Hapsburg dynasty of Austria), the purpose of the state is to exist not for its own sake but for the sake of the people that it is meant to serve. Its authority is circumscribed by the rights of its citizens. It is only free to act in those fields within their remit. The State is therefore at all times the servant of natural law. Or perhaps we could comprehend it if it is stated more crudely, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, a French socialist politician puts it as follows “Authority, which in monarchy is the principle of governing, is in republics the aim of the government.” What does that mean to us? And why should it matter? There are many who are of the view that all we need is change in the title of the governor-general to president, remove all reference to The Crown and everything will go on as they always have. I will however disabuse you of that notion. One of the biggest arguments republicans use to bolster their cause is the fact that we live in the 21^st century, the royals being acutely aware of this fact are not going to commit any infraction that will effectively abolish themselves and the governor-general also being aware of this sentiment will also tread very carefully. A president on other hand does not have anyone calling for his/her head constantly simply by virtue of their existence, therefore without this sense of foreboding hanging over them they would not be subjected to the same careful inclinations in the exercise of their duties.

One of the primary goals of every monarch is to leave behind a strong legacy for their heirs to inherit, in his book “Democracy: The God that Failed” Professor Hans Herman Hoppe made mention of the fact that in a republic, a president holds the use of the current resource of the government but does NOT own its capital value since unlike a king, a president cannot pass on his title to an heir, in fact in some cases his successor might even be an enemy (e.g. Trump and Biden). With this in mind a president has no incentive to maintain or even enhance the value of the government estate but instead as a mere trustee, he knows he has but a short time to acquire whatever he can from his office before term limits eventually force him out to make room for his replacement (and this we see in the fact that most US presidents leave office considerably wealthier than they were at inauguration). We are often told that president would give our children a chance to aspire to something, but the truth is there is no president that really goes into office thinking about any future office holder. King Charles on the other hand would most certainly have succession at the forefront of his mind, the legacy that he would leave behind for Prince William and Prince George, hence his own notion on how to conduct himself on throne would be guided by this consideration in a way a president will not. This fact alone lessens any likelihood of a monarch’s involvement in corruption since he knows it will mean not only the end of his reign but the end of the monarchy itself (another thing a president need not worry about)

An example of such a scenario playing out can be seen approximately a decade ago in the uprising known as the Arab spring. Several nations in West Asia and North Africa went through a revolutionary fervor with citizens demanding more rights, better living conditions and greater representation in governments. In the wake of this, republics such as Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Yemen all experienced a complete breakdown of civil authority as exemplified by the complete overthrow of existing governments. In contrast, monarchies like Jordan, Morocco and Bahrain served as a moderating influence, yes changes were indeed made to these countries but the changes were smoother and did not come in the wake of any long lasting instability. This is due in no small part to Kings who proved themselves open to changes. Yom and Gause argue that the “Arab Spring might just as well be called the Arab Republics’ Spring” because monarchies remained relatively stable while republican regimes in the region collapsed or experienced monumental shifts.  What was it that caused the difference where King Abdullah II and King Mohammed VI were able to retain their thrones while men like Hosni Mubarak and Abdullah Saleh were forced demit office? Were not the latter democratically elected by their people as a president should be? First of all, neither president was chosen by the people, they were selected by a small group of elites, secondly both presidents headed regimes that were notorious for corruption and repression of dissent and third, both of these presidents were siphoning state resources, lining the pockets of their cronies. In stark contrast to this stands the Kings of Jordan and Morocco both of whom being in the position that they were in recognized that if they wanted a secure monarchy to pass to the next generation, social and political changes were necessary which allowed them to survive and their people to thrive,

 

But wait, you might ask, doesn’t that mean that the royals are just as self-interested as elected politicians? Yes, this is so. However, it is in human nature to be self-interested even those are doing good often do so with self-interested motives in mind e.g. European powers didn’t abolish slavery out of the goodness of their hearts but because it was economically beneficially to them. Yet the slaves enjoy the benefit of freedom from the taskmasters once emancipation was proclaimed. Similarly, when companies participate in charity work, is it because they are benevolent heroes? Not at all, they are looking for the tax breaks that come with it. Yet the disadvantaged persons who benefit from the charity efforts are still grateful for it. What is my point here, the Kantian worldview of innate human goodness is a fallacy, yet many republics claim this as their legacy simply by virtue of that fact they have a head of state who claims some electoral legitimacy (which at times does not even exist). The Machiavellian worldview on the other hand is far more accurate and this is especially because many misunderstand it in the first place.  In his 1532 masterpiece “The Prince” Machiavelli makes mention of the fact that while a monarch should deal ruthlessly with foreign powers, he should also deal justly and kindly with his own citizens in that way, he will be loved at home and feared abroad. Yet in discussing the Machiavellian point of view, scholarship often mentions only half the story. The point is this, both monarchs and presidents are human and both are flawed and self-interested, what makes the difference however is that a monarch has far more to lose as he has the next generation to consider whereas a president can only ever see as far as the end of his term.  Even while still Prince of Wales, we often heard Charles III talk about the kind of world he is leaving behind for his upcoming grandchildren, Joe Biden and Donald Trump on the other hand cannot seem to think beyond the 2024 polls. Is it not better then to cast our lot with a head of state that has a longer, more visionary view in mind?

To be Continued in Part three 

Monarchy vs a Corrupt Republic : Part 1

 

The following is part one 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.

“I declare before you all that my whole life whether it be long or short shall be devoted to your service and the service of our great imperial family to which we all belong”

These words were spoken by the then Princess Elizabeth (who later became Queen Elizabeth II) on the occasion of her 21^st birthday.

It would be hard pressed to hear any president of any republic legitimately make a similar pledge because this might be indicative of his ambition to rule for life, such a notion which is normal and expected of a monarch would be alarming for a president since it would go against the very idea of what a president is meant to be which is a temporary guardian of the highest office of the state. Indeed, during the Trump years, some in the US media who were hostile to him kept referring to him as the “occupant of the White House”. In a way they were correct, but this is not limited to Trump but is fact applicable to all US presidents ever since George Washington and that is exactly the point of what a president is supposed to be.

A key argument used to republicans is that a republic is a “modern” form of government while monarchies belong only in the past or in stories such as popular medieval drama Game of Thrones. This of course is misleading as the truth is republics are quite old, going all the way back to classical Greece. If anything a proper historical understanding only proves that monarchies are a longer lasting form of state. E.g. When Jamaica was captured by England in 1655, England for the first time in its history was a republic led by Oliver Cr0mwell. But a mere 5 years later, the republican experiment was ended lasting only 11 years. Clearly republicanism didn’t work out then. But I have yet to have anyone to prove to me that if the republic did last then colonialism or slavery would not have happened. In fact, the history not only of Cromwell’s republic but also of the Dutch Republic and the pre-civil war USA all prove that a republican form of government didn’t necessarily mean freedom for all. What is my point exactly? To downplay slavery or colonialism? Not at all, people are flawed in every age and the idea that a republican form of government is somehow more virtuous must be expunged.

Many republics claim virtue as an exclusive right but in the same vein they also claim an exclusive hold on democracy but of course one doesn’t need to look very far to see that for the lie that it is.  Why mention this? An important part of integrity is the ability to tell the truth and the reality is that many republics that give lip service to democracy are hardly democracies. Just take one look at the democracy index, at the very top of this list is  Norway, followed by New Zealand, Iceland, Sweden and Denmark (note that of the countries I just mentioned only Iceland is a republic). Compare that with the very bottom of this list i.e. the least democratic countries. Well there is Afghanistan (for obvious reasons) followed by North Korea, Myanmar and Central African Republic, not a single kingdom among them.

But in addition to this even in cases where republics are more democratic, the element of dishonesty remains. This is more so in parliamentary republic than a presidential one. In a presidential republic, the president is truly a representative of the people as he is elected by the people and whoever wins the overall national vote wins the election (an exception to this is the US where the election is determine by not by national vote but by state vote and thus the candidate that wins the most states also wins the most electoral college votes).

A parliamentary republic also gives lip service to popular sovereignty but in many cases the president is not chosen by the people but rather is nominated by the prime minister and rubber stamped by parliament. Indeed, just a few weeks ago, our neighbor Trinidad and Tobago installed Christine Kangaloo as the 7^th president of the republic. It should be noted that while the media kept referring to it as an election, it was really an appointment. Kangaloo’s appointment was not without controversy as the official opposition party was thoroughly opposed to her nomination, but PM Rowley having the majority in parliament just pushed it through anyway. As we all know, the latest announcement from the Ministry of Legal and Constitutional Affairs states that the republican model being considered for Jamaica is similar to the one used in Trinidad. What is point of this stating this? Contrary to the very ideal of popular sovereignty, the head of state is not at all the representative of a sovereignty people but rather a creature of the head of government which belies the notion of democratic legitimacy or apolitical neutrality.

I for one am not necessarily here to argue for a presidential type system as that too comes with a host of political problems least of all is gridlock as is exemplified by government shutdowns in the US when the White House and Capitol Hill are controlled by opposing parties. The parliamentary system serves us quite well but such a system is not going to allow a directly elected president. Nor will I ever advocate for one, I am after all, a deeply devout monarchist, one who would have sided with George III in the American Revolution, supported the Shah in Iran’s 1979 revolution or backed Emperor Selassie against the Derg regime. My point is this, the very nature of the presidential office in of parliamentary republic is dishonest because it claims a legitimacy that it does not truly possess. Why is monarchy not the same? Simple…monarchy does NOT claim to have democratic legitimacy in and of itself, the primary exercisers of royal authority (King and G0vernor-General) are not elected, this is known and accepted by all as simply part and parcel of a monarchical system. But what the Crown does do is provide a framework for elected officials to function in the various officers under our constitutional arrangement. As the late Queen once puts it “My Job is not to govern, but to ensure that there is a government”. This is a far more honest setup than one in which an unelected president is masking as an elected one simply by virtue of their title.

This was seen not only in Trinidad but also in Barbados where upon being selected in 2021, news items both locally and overseas kept referring to Sandra Mason as the first elected president of Barbados, that too was patently false, the truth is that Mason was nominated and appointed by Mia Mottley with the House of Assembly (which had a supermajority for the government) rubberstamping her choice. Incidentally enough 3 years earlier when Mason was appointed as governor-general upon the nomination of PM Freundel Stuart, none made the claim that she was elected because indeed she was not, but change the vice-regal title to a presidential one and replace Queen with parliament and all of a sudden an appointment is being confused for an election. There is clear disparity between what the presidency is purported to be and what it actually is.

This is important as too often the concept of republicanism has often been conflated with what it means to be a democracy. This comes mainly from an influx of an Americanized culture which makes the two somewhat indistinguishable regardless of what Democrats and Republicans will tell you. But in truth democracy refers to above all else right of the people to participate in determining their own development and future. Yet it should be noted neither of the two classical forms of government is by nature linked with democracy. Democracy as well as autocracy can exists with or without a monarch. This argument applies not only to democracy but overall development. Last year, The PM told the Prince of Wales (then Duke of Cambridge) that Jamaica would be moving on from the monarchy and become a developed country. This conflation was celebrated by those not paying attention as often republicans love using the monarchy as a scapegoat for why Jamaica is not a first world country. But objectively speaking there is nothing in having a King that would indicate a lack of development. If anyone is holding us back, it is not King Charles or the late Queen Elizabeth but our own corrupt politicians.  The last thing we need is but another politician added to the mix. The Spectator in 1997 puts it this way “The monarchy is a political referee, not a political player, and there is a lot of sense in having a referee different from the players. It lessens the danger that the referee might try to start playing.”

Stay Tuned for Part two

Multipolar Shift

 

 “A new power is rising; Its victory is at hand”

These words were uttered in the 2002 film Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers.

As epic a line as that may have been for the screen, it is even more epic to see it play out in real time. What is this new power being referred to here?  Is there a shift in the global structure and if so how? Prior to the World Wars, the world order was structured based on the principle of multipolarity in which the world was divided into spheres of influence where great powers competed for dominance. The end of the Second World War saw a change in the order, in which the system moved from a multipolar system to a bipolar one. Once great empires such as Britain or France were reduced and in their place was the rise of two great superpowers i.e. the United States and the Soviet Union. The world entered the Cold War phase which lasted till the early 1990s when the USSR collapsed leaving the USA as the unchecked global hegemon.  This unipolar phase was declared to be the “end of history “where American ideals of capitalism and liberal democracy will reign supreme forever under the guiding hand of the leader of the free world.

This utopian vision however was not to be; in fact, now more than ever we are closer to a dystopia or as Bob Marley puts it, there is still very much “so much trouble in the world”. This of course has led many countries to question the idea once put forward by former President Barack Obama that “America is the only indispensable nation on the Earth”; and with the United States being seen by some losing its touch, many countries are now looking elsewhere for leadership, namely BRICS.

What has caused this shift? Many things actually, but the underlying factor is that too many nations do not see the current world order as working in their favour and therefore are committed to changing it. An important aspect of this change is the process of de-dollarisation. In the wake of the world wars, the United States set up the Bretton Woods system to remake the world economy in its own image with the dollar at its centre. The BRICS countries however are resolved to alter this system as they find that it is simply not in their interest to play by rules of the Washington consensus. The alternative of course is to set up their own system and what better place to start with than trade? One by one BRICS countries have announced their intention to move from trading in dollars to using a new currency as their means of exchange. At present, BRICS members have taken steps to limit the use of the dollar such as India and Brazil announcing that all trade will be conducted in rupees and real respectively meanwhile Saudi Arabia has announced that it will trade with China using the yuan instead the dollar.

And speaking of the Sauds, they have been quite busy as of late thanks to the leadership of Crown Prince Mohammed who serving as his father’s prime minister has entered into a state of rapprochement with both Russia and China hence allowing them both to influence new peace deals in West Asia.  President Xi taking advantage of this alliance has managed to do what the US had failed to do in decades which is to facilitate the normalisation of relations between the Saudis and the Islamic Republic of Iran. Meanwhile President Putin, who was determined not to be outdone decided to act as facilitator of a separate negotiation between Riyadh and the Assad-led regime in Damascus. It must be noted that all of this took place without the involvement of Washington; this however runs contrary to a promise made by Joe Biden to the Arab nations that the United States would not abandon them, yet while the US has for a very long time been most bellicose in its attitude, Beijing and Moscow are willing to facilitate peace.

Russia facilitate peace? You might ask, shouldn’t they be a pariah by now due to the war in Ukraine?  That depends entirely on who you ask. In the West, Putin has been reviled as the incarnation of Hitler and Stalin rolled into one. Due to this characterization, he is all but deemed persona non grata in the West. Xi also has a shaky image in the USA and other Western powers thanks to their media portraying him as a madman anxious to finish what Mao started and conquer Taiwan. Outside of these bubbles however, the view is much different. Survey after survey has found that while Americans consider China, the greatest threat to world peace and Western Europeans name Russia, when it comes to countries in the global south they consider the United States as the greatest threat to world peace and it isn’t hard to see why they would come to this conclusion. Both Latin America and Africa lived under centuries of European colonization yet just as they finally managed to wrestle themselves free of formal colonial rule they found themselves under the yoke of American neo-colonialism. This has led them to see the US not a beacon to look up to for guidance but rather as the great colossus of the north coming to threaten them down with its big stick policy. This perception was demonstrated very recently in the visit of US Vice President Kamala Harris to the African continent. The Biden admin no doubt assumed than sending the first black female VP would resonate with Africans yet this was a grave miscalculation on the part of the White House. As she spoke, it became clear to Africans that Harris did not represent their interest at all, not when she came to lecture them about climate change and LGBT rights. These topics were ones that African leaders had little patience in discussing especially since it implied that she expected to hear them condemn the recent LGBT law passed by Uganda, something which these African countries refused to do.  One cannot help but contrast this high handed behaviour by the US with the approach taken by Russia who had the grace to write off the equivalent of US$20Billion in African debt while making no attempt to intervene in the internal politics of these nations. Is it any wonder then that so many countries are interested in an expansion of the BRICS? That only leaves the question of who will be the first to join, with the obvious frontrunner being Saudi Arabia while Iran, Argentina and Turkey are keen not to be left behind.

And speaking of BRICS one cannot help but contrast it with the other purported challenger to the American economic order i.e. the European Union. Unlike BRICS who are pushing boundaries, the EU finds itself in a great crisis thanks to the boomerang effect of the sanctions they affected against Russia. And if this wasn’t bad enough, the blowing up the Nordstream pipeline made their problem even worse. Who sabotaged the pipeline? There are theories, some more credible than others. But no matter how plausible or implausible these theories are, what is most incredulous of all is that the European members of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) decided to NOT support Russia’s motion for an independent investigation into the incident. That by itself is very suspicious as logically speaking, the party who was most affected should have a greater interest than anyone else in uncovering the truth, but instead they decided to all but look the other way. The oddity of this behaviour must be puzzling to anyone who would rightfully question why Europe is behaving so cowardly when their own strategic continental interest is at stake, who are they afraid of angering?

The triumph of American ideals all over the globe are said to represent the end of history, but it’s not really end of history because while Europe might be moving closer to USA’s orbit (as demonstrated by the recent NATO expansion), the rest of the world trends in the opposite direction. This movement stands in direct opposition to the Hegemonic Stability Theory (HST), a doctrine which claims that the world is best served when there is only one unchecked superpower. When competition is less, then everybody prospers, an enlightened age of Pax Americana (or so the theory goes). But as any student of business can tell you, monopolies eventually become stagnant and empires that stretch themselves too thin become inefficient. The only true constant in this world is that eventually things must change. There is no system in the world that lasts forever and while no one in their right mind would ever predict that America will decline like Rome, what is clear is that the resurgence of new players on the world stage means that the US is no longer the sole indispensable power, not when countries such as Russia and China are all too eager to return the world to a more equal balance. Hegemonic Unipolarity is a thing of the past; a multipolar world is the way forward and the best way to deal with said change is not to oppose it but embrace it.

 

Ditch the Court, keep the King.

 

The government in keeping with its agenda of reforming the constitution of Jamaica has now formed a constitutional review committee with the stated aim of revising the constitution of Jamaica as it transitions from a monarchical state to a republican one. This, the government claims will be the crowning act (pun intended) of years of work done, going all the way back to a time before Jamaica became independent. There is much and more that has been said about all the proposals put forward for such a revision. The most popular argument that has been put forward is the matter of Jamaica’s sovereignty in having its own institutions. Yet while the committee has been touted itself as being committed to this goal, it has also made statements that are blatantly in contradiction with this aim. This might come as a surprise but while there is an eagerness to replace King Charles III with a president of the government’s choosing (no presidential elections for the people), a member of the review committee also stated in an interview with a local TV station that that there is no immediate plan to move away from the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and towards a local or regional final appellate court. This turn of events is one that undoubtedly belies any talk whatsoever regarding Jamaican sovereignty.

As far as the independence of Jamaica goes, it should be clear that the JCPC is a far greater hindrance to Jamaican sovereignty than the monarchy.  It sounds strange to the uninitiated,  but contrary to popular myth, the CCJ and a republic do not go hand in hand, they are separate issues and it is very much possible for a country to have its own final appeal court while still maintaining ties to the Crown, this is seen in the cases of countries like Canada and Australia. This government is telling us that we are better doing the opposite, getting a president but still remaining under the Privy Council (which by the way is legally possible). This then leads to the question, if the government is serious then how they can leave our judicial affairs in the hands of an external entity? Unlike His Majesty who outsources all of his executive authority to the Office of the Governor-General [see section 68 (1) and 68 (2) of the constitution for reference], the JCPC does NOT outsource their judicial authority to a local body but has instead taken it upon themselves to overrule the right of Jamaican judges to make rulings and by so doing set judicial precedence from a jurisdiction far from our shores.

We know that for the longest time that Jamaica has been plagued by a crime problem and that there are many who would want to see resumption of the death penalty, even documents as recent as the 2011 Charter of Rights confirms that this is the will of Jamaican people.  Yet the JCPC has constantly found ways to ban the death penalty de facto if they can’t do it de jure. The cases are well known to us, the Dick Trimmingham case, the Lambert Watson case and not to mention the landmark Pratt and Morgan case are all prominent examples that any legal scholar would be aware of.  What is the point being made here?  If sovereignty is the argument of the government for wanting a republic then it falls flat in light of this revelation re the court.

Why does this argument apply to the JCPC but not the monarchy? It is simple, there is no evidence whatsoever that the monarch meddles unduly in politics, in fact all the evidence points to the contrary. At the 2022 CHOGM summit 3 months before his accession, the King (who was then Prince of Wales) stated that every country in the Commonwealth has the right to choose its own form of government and that the Crown will not interfere to keep any country tied against its will. But what is even more interesting is a revelation by noted diplomat Sir Ronald Sanders detailing a conversation between Cuban President Fidel Castro and Antiguan Prime Minister Sir Lester Bird. In the conversation, Bird confided in Castro his plans to make his country a republic thinking to get tacit approval from the revolutionary leader. Fidel however surprised him by telling that since Queen Elizabeth II did not directly meddle in his government then becoming a republic was completely pointless. Castro was of course in the right to assert that a figurehead monarch who does not insert him or herself into politics was no hindrance to sovereignty at all, so if a communist can see the truth of it then how comes our leaders are so blind to that fact?, or is that they know the truth but are counting on the rest of us to be blind and to swallow the kool-aid of whatever they tell us?

Let us be very clear here, Jamaica’s sovereignty is rock solid and irreversible, a president will not raise our standing in the world, because there is no country that disputes our sovereignty, the only people that contest it are internal dissenters with a biased anti-royal agenda. The Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States gives 4 criteria that define a fully independent country, a) fixed geographical territory, b) permanent population, c) a legitimate government capable of exercising all internal authority and conducting external relations and d) recognition by the international community. It would be hard pressed for anyone to make the case that Jamaica does not already posses all 4.  In addition it must be pointed out that every single country whose sovereignty is currently in dispute is already a republic. Prominent among these includes Palestine, whose sovereignty is being disputed by Israel and its allies. Then there is Kosovo, which some states consider a breakaway region from Serbia, while Abkhazia and South Ossetia are still seen as part of Georgia. The most well known case by far is that of Taiwan, which thanks to the one China policy is struggling to gain recognition from majority of the world’s nations including our government here in Jamaica. It goes without saying that Jamaica does not have this problem, which would logically make the republican argument moot.

Some would posit that there is a need to have our own thing instead of sharing a monarch with 14 other countries. Yet those who would make such argument would have no problem sharing a final court of appeal, either the JCPC or the Caribbean Court of Justice, how then can we have a feeling of having our own under such a circumstance? This concern is exacerbated by the fact that unlike becoming a republic, there is no need for a referendum to alter the final court. Given the prior attitude of the government this might be surprising yet it is exactly what was stated in the same interview referenced in the paragraph above. This revelation runs counter to what the current ruling party has said in the past. Back in 2012, the then government tabled a motion in parliament to replace the JCPC with the CCJ (they were of course using it as stepping stone to axe the Queen). The then opposition (now the government) opposed this, claiming that the court cannot be removed without a referendum, now they are saying the exact opposite, which raises 2 questions.

1.       Why did they give the impression that a referendum was required to move to the CCJ if they knew all along that was not the case?;

 and

2. Why are they focused on a republic now which requires a plebiscite when it is far easier to deal with the court where a plebiscite is not needed?

So far the government has only provided more questions and very little answers. If they want sovereignty so bad then why keep the court when it’s rulings have a greater impact on our daily lives? If switching from monarch to president requires a referendum then why not just sort out the court where a 2/3 vote in parliament can seal the deal? This government claims to have its priorities in check but anyone looking at their trajectory should throw cold water on that suggestion. They keep saying that there is an urgency for a republic; urgency from whom?; urgency from where?; what are they not telling us? That argument really doesn’t make sense unless they can show the Jamaican people, the real urgency in this. This is not a bottom-up suggestion but a top-down imposition and as such the arguments fall flat when consider all the moving parts and it is not hard to see that it is far better for the government to ditch the court and keep the King.