On the matter of sovereignty.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Harsh Truths About Constitutional Reform

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Embracing our destiny…what does it mean?

 

In the discourse on constitutional reform one word I often hear used in the rhetoric is that of “destiny”. This is normally used in two phrases. Either we are being told that becoming a republic is in our destiny or we are told that to become a republic is taking our destiny in our own hands. Both of these sound very good from a campaign standpoint but I would like to go beyond the fancy phrases and examine if such sentiments have any merit or not.

The first idea that I would like to challenge is that becoming a republic is to “take our destiny in our own hands”. This presumes that until we have a president our destiny is in the hands of someone else and only by replacing King Charles with a president will that change. I recall in a forum on an online discussion, someone pointed to the example of what Mia Mottley imposed on Barbados in 2021 as “taking charge of one’s destiny. I, however would contradict that narrative by pointing to the fact that the people of Barbados were given no say in their destiny by their government. Did the people of Barbados truly want to replace the late Queen Elizabeth? Maybe or maybe not. The truth is we will never know because the decision to become a republic was not made BY the people but made FOR the people by a government who did not ask the people for permission to change the constitution in the first place. Does this sound like being charge of your destiny? I know some would say that the government was duly elected and as such has the right to change the constitution on their own? This argument is a logical fallacy as the standard practice of democracies is that governments are elected to uphold the constitution not to change it as they see fit. It is people who have the ultimate right to decide what they want to do with the constitution, St Vincent demonstrated perfectly well how this is done in 2009 when the people were given the opportunity to become a republic and they rejected it in a public vote. It should be pointed out that they did not have to reject it, they could have gone along with it but they chose not to. This is how a nation’s destiny is decided, by the will of the people.

 

This brings me to my second criticism of this “destiny” narrative. Jamaica’s destiny is whatever we make it to be. A republic is not and has never been an inevitability. The government only wants us to think that it is inevitable because it serves their interest for us to think that, but the truth is the power should not rest with the government and it certainly does not rest with Brits either (contrary to what we are told), the power belongs to us, the people of Jamaica because the constitution is clear on that already, we have no need of a president to solidify that fact. 

 I can already anticipate the backlash to my assertions. “If the power belongs to us already then shouldn’t we have a president to show that we are truly independent?” That might be a useful argument if we were talking about a president chosen by the people. But there is no way anyone can convince me that a president that is handpicked and totally controlled by the prime minister and his inner circle is somehow Jamaica’s great inevitable destiny, if that is what we call destiny then it’s a very low bar indeed. This is the same kind of mindset as those who seek public office so they can be somebody instead of those who seek office so they can actually do something. In other words, this is having a president for the sake a having a president, a useless proposition as we already have a governor-general serving the same function.

Another criticism I would like to address is those who point to fact that we already have a homegrown governor-general to justify the transition to a presidency. The logic behind this argument goes something like this, from Sir Clifford Campbell onward, Jamaicans have served in the office of governor-general and have done well with this position therefore this means we are ready to move to having a president. This line of thought is faulty from the very start as it incorrectly assumes an inherently superior nature of a presidential office over a viceregal one. However, anyone who looks outside this prism will see the obvious loopholes. The fact that several great Jamaican statesmen have been appointed to the office of the governor-general and excelled at it, does not justify switching to a presidency, on the contrary it justifies the continuation of the office of governor-general because we have Jamaicans that have proven they are perfectly capable and competent enough to step into the shoes of literal royalty and function as a king would, that is not a boast that any president can make, only the King’s representative is capable of such bragging rights. Should that be a cause of shame or despair for us? Not at all, I consider it a matter of pride that we have such caliber of men (and hopefully women in the future) who would have served us so faithfully in said capacity. This whole idea of the governor-general being an agent of the UK is totally false because the UK government has nothing to with the GG, he is purely Jamaican the literal embodiment of constitutional and royal legitimacy at the apex of our government, appointed by the Sovereign of Jamaica on the advice of our parliament. This idea that fulfilling our destiny means switching this out in favour a presidency is a made-up idea that holds no water except in the minds of those making the argument.

In the end, I write this letter as patriot who loves this country and wants to see it thrive, however my idea of thriving is not and has never been tied to having a president, especially not a puppet president who is supposedly independent who is anything but. I am aware that those who are all in on the “road to republic” project also see themselves as patriots and no doubt will view those who oppose them as agents of the British. But I’m not here to advocate for the British, I’m here to advocate for Jamaica, for the monarchy of Jamaica and for the constitution of Jamaica as bequeathed to us by our forefathers (not by the British) on our independence. Our destiny is not written is stone like some mysterious runic prophecy and our destiny is certainly not what the ruling class tells us that is, they have their agenda but the power doesn’t belong to them, it belongs to us and I can find no clearer of displaying that than by us rejecting their road to republic.

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.

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

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 Elizabeth II  as its head, a year later they amended the constitution to remove her, contrary to popular belief however, they did NOT become a republic. Instead they became an elective monarchy where the rulers 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 he wanted to highest office for himself decided to overthrow the Kabaka . 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 have a similar structure 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 most bizarre and quite offensive and here is why? Jamaica is a beautiful country, we have so much to offer the world, from our natural beauty to our culture from  to our sporting achievements  and so much more 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 Crown Prince Otto of Austria also a noted scholar and elder statesman, 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 state 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 . We need only to look to the  US presidency where most incumbents leave office considerably wealthier than they were before going in. 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 own reign but the end of  dynasty's future prospects.

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 the industrial revolution meant slavery was no longer profitable to them 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 in 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 by republicans is that a republic is a “modern” form of government while monarchies belong only in the past or in fairy tales. 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. For instance, When Jamaica was captured by England in 1655, England for the first and only time in its history was a republic . But a mere 5 years later, the republican experiment was ended lasting only 11 years in total. 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 Revolutionary France, pre-civil war United States and the numerous communists regimes of the 20th century, all prove that a republican form of government does not 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 will somehow wipe the slate clean is absolute nonsense. 

Many republics claim virtue as an exclusive right but in the same vein they also claim an exclusive hold on democracy. One does not 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, all republics of some kind.

But in addition to this even in cases where republics are 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 popular 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 it is a farce as 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 neighbour Trinidad and Tobago installed Christine Kangaloo as the 7^th president of their 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 sovereign 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 King George III in the American Revolution, supported Shah Mohammed Reza 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 , 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 our late Queen once stated “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 after using her supermajority in the House of Assembly to rubberstamp 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, the 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