Ronald Thwaites | Danger lurks

A constitution is supposed to reflect the basic elements of a covenant between the citizens of a nation state. The liberty of the subject is the first principle of constitutional order, not only as a good in itself but equally as to how individual liberty, personal and communal agency, contributes to the common good.

Starting there, our constitution can do with the close and careful scrutiny upon which we are now embarking. The process must not be rushed or superficial because the outcome will be definitive of how a divided, unequal and often exploitative and oppressive citizenry decide to relate to each other for generations to come.

The enterprise is that big. It is going to determine in large part who decides to live here or migrate; who flourishes or sinks into material or spiritual poverty: who goes to prison or death and who lives free.

LIBERTY OR AUTOCRACY?

As citizens of a liberal democratic regime, not an authoritarian state, a crucial issue is the power we as individuals cede, from our plenitude, to those who we elect to govern us. I cringe when the media refer to any political administration as “the ruling party”– as true in reality as that epithet turns out to be. Leadership does not imply domination: it is the privilege of humble, sacrificial service. Isn’t that what the whole Easter story is about?

Bruce Golding was admirable when, some years ago, he declared himself “the chief servant” of the people. History will judge whether he lived out the principle he espoused. The point which has to be central to our effort to improve our fundamental law is that, contrary to creeping state power, the sargassum of bureaucracy and personal and official arrogance, two principles must be front and centre: the maximum liberty of the citizen consistent with the common good of all.

Yes, there is a tension in that proposition. There always will be and our happiness and greatness will lie in how we balance individual interests with a renewed definition of the common good.

NO TO DIVISIVENESS

This requires deep spiritual and political discourse prior to any rewriting of the Constitution. I am convinced that a good social outcome , a more moral result than what obtains now, cannot take place in a climate of deep and purposeless partisanship.

The reality of prime ministerial dictatorship (Portia was never like that) and the advancing national security state are to be challenged and changed. Both derogate from maximum personal agency and overall common good. If the leaders of our political culture cannot listen to us, agree upon and lead us in a united direction, then they are not nationalist leaders of any worth but chiefs of cabals, more resembling mafia bosses than chief servants.

The clear and present likelihood of this personality cult and proto-fascism must be averted by the overhaul of the Westminster order and replaced by structures of collaboration and cooperation rather than competition and chronic disunity.

THE COMMON GOOD

What then are some important elements of this common good? First is respect for the dignity of every Jamaican: all of us, not just some. Respect and dignity for the unborn through to the aged and differently-abled. Respect and dignity in spite of all our differences of race, class, religion, gender and sexual particularities, politics and all the other ascriptions which we manufacture to divide us.

There is no Jamaican life or indeed any human life which is unworthy of life. For most of us, faith in God and his Word provide a solid ground for proclaiming the dignity and inviolability of the human person. In discussion about constitutional change, religious belief must not allow its influence to be tamed.

A PHILOSOPHY

There is so much more. My concern is that the remit of the Constitutional Reform Committee is silent, so far, on the fundamental philosophy of its exercise. We have a history of denied or demeaned personhood. Sadly, the slave legacy and even now, our political economy perpetuate much of that.

Systemic inequity is compounded by its bastard pickneys, criminality and disorder. These cause many of those presently in authority to espouse desperate measures. The leaders of the Review Committee, reflecting, we must assume, the views of the majority political party, have already advanced the position that the State (meaning them..) does not have enough power to tame the monsters of public disorder, significantly of their own creation.

They should remember the fate of Louis XIV and his ilk. Persons have been elevated to positions of influence in the task of constitutional reform whose past statements and record of failure, render them entirely unsuited to this task.

And despite early statements by Committee members representing the Opposition in favour of protecting civil liberties, what will be the strength of their position when faced with the populist canard that they are soft on crime? It is not forgotten who introduced the Gun Court and Suppression of Crime laws two generations ago. If no one else, the elders of Central Kingston have not forgotten the murderous ambush at Green Bay.

NON SEQUITURS AND SECRECY

Proclaiming the truth that the right to life is the first human right does not justify its defence by abrogating the liberty of others beyond the restraints of the current constitution and especially its Charter of Rights. It is a cruel fallacy to believe that if you lock up or kill enough people, crime will stop for good.

I understand that the Commission has begun meeting. They are talking about our business. There is no basis for secrecy here. We need to know the views of each member on all issues. The fulsome minutes of every meeting should be published immediately so we can gauge the principles being advanced. In fact, the media must be allowed to cover all deliberations. The Opposition and independent members should demand this. So should every element of civil society.

Constitutional reform is most serious. Opportunity exists if proper principles are applied and full transparency is observed. Without these danger lurks. Be warned.

Rev Ronald G Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com