What is the rationale
for such a move? They tell us that doing so would make us independent, that is
the narrative that republicans have been spinning for decades now and it sounds
reasonable to the ear of the uninitiated.But let us examine that claim for a
moment,Will having a president make us more independent than we are now, and if
so how? For over 60 years we have been told that Jamaica is an independent
nation, for the government to now claim that a republic will complete our
independence is tantamount to an admission that they lied to us in 1962, that
we did not become truly independent then. Can the Jamaican people truly trust
the word of the government now when they all but admitted to not being truthful
years ago? Or maybe it is the other way around, maybe the government in 1962
was being honest about our independence which means the current government is
trying to pull the wool over our eyes now, I would propose that it is the
latter.
We should not gloss
over the linguistic games that the elites try to play by claiming that Jamaica
is independent but our sovereignty is not complete. This notion is to be rejected as it is a
logical impossibility. Both terms are interchangeable which means that if we
became independent in 1962 then we also gained sovereignty in 1962 and any
suggestion to the contrary is a smokescreen to hoodwink the Jamaican people. It
was even inferred by former Prime Minister P.J. Patterson that we don’t have
not full self-determination because our constitution was imposed on us by the
United Kingdom. This is a blatant fiction meant to deliberately distort the
factsand the record must be set straight. The truth is that the constitution we
have now was drafted by a bipartisan committee made up of PNP and JLP members
of the time, all Jamaicans. Not a single Englishman was allowed to sit on that
committee, not even the colonial governor. And while it is true that the
instrument was ratified by the Privy Council in London, that ratification was a
rubberstamp and did not change a word of what our constitutional framers had
already written. Some would suggest that even this formality would call for a
need for the constitution to be repatriated.
This is admittedly a reasonable argument, but constitutional
repatriation does not equal a republican form of government. Canada, Australia
and New Zealand all had their constitutions repatriated in the 1980s and none
of them did so as a republic, that is a model we can safely emulate.
In remarks made in
Montego Bay, on January 14 2023, PM Holness indicated that “It is time that
Jamaica becomes a republic” this echoed the sentiment made by his predecessor
in 2012. There is an unspoken assumption by both major political parties that
there is a time for a republic and a therefore a move towards that direction is
a move towards progress. This assumption has been filtered down to the rest of
society. But where did this assertion come from that republicanism equals
progress? Progress to me is anything that improves the livelihood of the people
giving them a chance to shape their own destiny. Unless one can prove to me
beyond all reasonable doubt that replacing The King with a President is
ultimately something that will improve the overall standard of living of the
Jamaican people then it by and large can only give the illusion of progress
while leaving actual progress in the dust. The truth is, there is not a single
objective measure of development that makes a republic superior to a
constitutional monarchy. Take one look at the statistics in theHuman
Development Index, immediately you will see that monarchies such as Sweden and Australia
are just as easily ranked in the top 10 as republics such as Switzerland and Germany
this alone should debunk the myth that a republic is any indicator of progress.
Nor is there any proof whatsoever that a republic is somehow more democratic
than a constitutional monarchy as some would assert. Such a notion is
immediately discredited by the Democracy Index which shows no difference between
republics and monarchies in the top performers yet the bottom ranks are dominated
by countries that are republics.
The progressive nature of republicanism that the elites try to sell us on is ultimately one made up in their heads and propagated to the rest of the population but truth be told the evidence to support this assumption is severely lacking. This is the reason why those who support republicanism appeal to emotioninstead by telling us that having a president will be a source of national pride andfulfil ouraspirations. I submit however that our leaders are less concerned with national pride and more concerned about their own egos, it is in fact not our aspiration that is of interest to them but rather their own. This is patently evident in the obstructions put up by opposition leader Mark Golding to halt the government’s plans. Is Golding an ardent monarchist who is truly living up to his title as the Leader of His Majesty’s Loyal Opposition? Not at all, Golding is one of the firmest opponents of the Crown, a position he made quite clear when Prince William visited us to mark the Late Queen’s Platinum Jubilee and which he has reiterated upon King Charles’ accession. So what gives? Why is he stalling the very thing he himself has advocated for? The answer is simple, he doesn’t want Holness to get any bragging rights for it, he wants the credit for himself and any other argument put forward by the opposition leader is ahoax to mask this desire.
This of course leads
to another question, why should we trust the current leaders of the PNP and JLP
with the power to choose a head of state for us when they don’t seem to be able
to get their act together here on this matter? And before anyone ask the
unspoken question as to why we should trust King Charles instead let me point out
that we really don’t. Section 68 (1) of our constitution states “The executive
authority of Jamaica is vested in His Majesty” however this is immediately
followed up 68 (2) which posits “The executive authority of Jamaica may be
exercised on behalf of His Majesty by the Governor-General either directly or
through officers subordinate to him.” Hence as we can clearly see a home-grownJamaican
already has the constitutional mandate to exercise all the prerogatives of the
Crown. So what then is really the difference between a president and a GG? The
difference is that a GG is truly neutral because the Crown itself is neutral, a
corporation sole. The same cannot be said of a president who is beholden to one
party or the other. In addition, an argument that should be gainsaid is the
notion that the President represents the people while the Governor-General
represents the King. While it is true that the GG does indeed represent His
Majesty (not UK’s government as some falsely claim), it is arguably untrue that
the President represents the people. In order for the President to represent
the people, he/she must be elected by the people, but this is not what the
Holness government intends. Instead the plan is to replicate what Mia Mottley
did in Barbados by simply having a PM nominate a candidate then having
parliament rubberstamp it. This is what they would have us believe is more
democratic? This is what would have us believe would bring national pride and
complete what they call the “cycle of independence”? The barefaced duplicity of
this argument should be clear anyone who is paying close enough attention. So
let me state the facts in no uncertain terms. Jamaica is already independent, having
a president won’t raise our standing in the world because sovereignty is the
highest one can go and we are already there. I am not naïve enough make the
claim that having a hereditary monarch or an appointed GG is egalitarian but
what I am saying is that anyonewho has even a basic understanding of our system
of government knows that this is the case hence it is honest. The same cannot
said with having a system where a president is appointed by the PM and
parliament, only for them to try and pass of their chosen candidate as the
democratic choice of the people simply because we call him Mr. President
instead of Your Majesty. This is little more than a fabrication that we the
Jamaican people must not allow the two-party duopoly to foist upon us and get
away with.
