Peter Espeut | The frippery of feudalism

I am pleased to see that spokesmen for both the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and the People’s National Party (PNP) – and this newspaper in its editorial yesterday (Thursday, March 16) – have declared support for the removal of ministerial discretion in the granting of permits and licences for the ownership and possession of firearms. When technocrats and investigators have determined that a person does not meet the criteria for owning a legal gun, only a court should have the power to overturn that determination (on a point of law).

Last week I pointed out that in our constitutional monarchy, all too many laws drafted and passed by politicians in the upper and lower house give judicial functions to their fellows who have been bumped up into the executive (the Cabinet). Jamaican laws usually give persons denied a fishing or mining licence or whatever the right to “appeal to the minister” whose “decision is final”. In my view, this breaches the constitutional principle of the “separation of powers”. This kind of appeal against a decision of the executive should only be made to the judiciary.

If the minister overturns a decision of his technocrats on legal grounds that is one thing; in any case, a court is best positioned to rule on points of law. The problem is that ministers may have other reasons for granting appeals and overturning technical decisions: personal interest, family interest, or pecuniary interest, for example. The minister may feel he owes someone a favour in return for political support. Ministers may hold misguided views on what is in the national interest (e.g., they may believe that short-term economic gain that is environmentally destructive may be more important than long-term sustainable development).

FACILITATES POLITICAL CORRUPTION

To the best of my knowledge, after the minister has come to his decision, he is not required to give any justification or explanation for his determination to anyone, not even the public. In my view, this monarchical behaviour is a breach of natural justice, and facilitates political corruption.

Some anti-colonials wish Jamaica to follow Barbados which last year abolished allegiance and fealty to the British monarchy. It will be empty symbolism (and possibly hypocrisy) to do so while empowering Cabinet ministers as little monarchs within their portfolios. Jamaica’s constitutional arrangements and monarchical laws definitely need a comprehensive overhaul, not emotional knee-jerk “fallah-fashion” or piecemeal alterations.

Abolishing the monarchy and creating a republic has been marketed by special interest groups as being about two things: removing the Queen as our (ceremonial) head of state and replacing her with a ceremonial or executive president; and replacing the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council as our final court of appeal with the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

Make no mistake: creating a republic is about power – placing more power in the hands of our elected and unelected politicians. Our politicians have no control over the appointment of the law lords on the Judicial Committee of the UK Privy Council. The chief justice of Jamaica is appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister (PM); no consultation with anyone is required. Remember that on January 31, 2018, PM Holness appointed Bryan Sykes as the new chief justice of Jamaica in an acting capacity, announcing that his confirmation would be subject to a performance review – a naked display of power of the executive over the judiciary. Our monarchical constitution does not require separation of powers: our prime minister is really a monarch!

The president of the CCJ is appointed by the prime ministers of the region. Abolishing the right of Jamaicans to appeal to the Privy Council places more power in the hands of Jamaica’s de facto constitutional monarch.

If Jamaica ever becomes a republic, will we abolish the power of the prime minister to appoint Jamaica’s chief justice without consultation?

PRESTIGE

Creating a republic is also about prestige: elevating the status of our elected and unelected politicians in their own eyes, and – they hope – in the eyes of others. The monarchy is also about power and prestige. Over the centuries, monarchs have resisted limitations on their power, and have given themselves titles and decorations to increase their prestige. Think about it: should we really call a human being "Your Highness" – Oh High One? How childish it sounds!

Or "Your Majesty" – Oh Majestic One?

After the Regicides beheaded King Charles I in 1649 and created the “Commonwealth of England” (really a republic), Oliver Cromwell – the Lord Protector – signed documents as “Oliver P”, the “P” being an abbreviation for “Protector”, which was similar to the style of monarchs who use an “R” to mean “Rex” or “Regina”; and it soon became the norm for Cromwell to be addressed as "Your Highness". The monarchical mindset is hard to shake. It has to be eradicated intentionally.

When the United States became a republic, it did not require its president to be addressed “Your Highness”, or “Most Honourable”, and its Cabinet ministers as “Honourable”. Do we really want Jamaica to become a republic? It does not require a referendum to stop giving public servants meaningless (and often misleading) honorific titles. I call on the PNP and the JLP to immediately – as a sign of good faith – pass legislation to abolish the frippery of feudalism we have anachronistically retained.

In my view, the most egregious piece of feudal frippery is to address our mayors as “Your Worship”! Really? Worship?! In the 21st century? Such a title has no place in a democracy, never mind a republic.

In 2003 (just the other day) while both the PNP and the JLP were deciding to ditch the monarchy and become a republic, the P.J. Patterson administration enacted legislation to automatically confer on all prime ministers the national honour of the Order of the Nation (ON). Thereafter they were entitled to be addressed as “Most Honourable”, and not just “Honourable” as previously. What feudal frippery! And the Most Honourable P.J. then wants to remove the Queen as our head of state?

To his everlasting credit, Bruce Golding refused to be conferred with the ON and to be addressed as “Most Honourable”; Andrew Holness and Portia Simpson Miller have not followed his good example; by law we must address them as “Most Honourable”. Feudal Frippery!

My fellow Jamaicans: be wary of politicians who promise republican status who really just seek to increase their power. A new constitution for Jamaica must abolish feudal frippery, entrench the separation of powers, and bind our politicians to greater transparency and accountability.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com