Peter Espeut | A more direct democracy, please

Earlier this month, lawyers from the Ministry of Legal Affairs and Constitutional Reform (MLACR) made presentations to the clergy and pastoral workers of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kingston on the proposals to modify Jamaica into a republic. They did not come to ask us what kind of Jamaica we wanted, or what kind of republic we wanted; they came to tell us what the government was offering – what the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) had agreed upon.

The meeting was not so much “public consultation” (they already had all the ideas they needed); the agenda was about propagating the CRC’s ideas (i.e. propaganda) – really the government’s ideas.

Every constitution is underpinned by a series of ideas about governance which begin with assumptions about the rights and obligations of the players in the system. Maybe I was unfair to ask these civil servants to explain some of the philosophy behind the proposed new constitution. They were given the task of propagandising on behalf of the government, and may not know the ethos driving this particular set of politicians to reform the constitution. But I did anyway.

If presently the British monarch is sovereign (in a symbolic sort of way), in what way will the new Jamaica be different? In the new Jamaica to come, who is sovereign? The president? The parliament? The people? The party in power? The prime minister?

Is the type of democracy to be practised based on the kratos of the demos (the rule of the people)? Or the rule of law? Or the rule of the politicians in power? Or the rule of the party financiers?

I was surprised at the answer I got. The government lawyer advised the group of us that under Jamaica’s new Constitution there would be the rule of the people; but that in a democracy the people elect politicians to rule on their behalf.

And I believe that this truly represents the government’s position. Once we elect our member of parliament, then that is the end of our kratos until the next election in about five years’ time. Until then it is the kratos of the few – the ologos. The members of parliament elect a prime minister (PM), and then he rules. He chooses his cabinet, and then each minister rules his own ministry, giving directives and making disclosures.

PROPOSITION

In the proposed Jamaican republic the monarchical PM will choose the president. He consults the Opposition leader (OL) about the president he wants, and if he/she agrees, then the PM gets his choice. If the OL does not agree, then each chooses a nominee and a vote is taken in parliament. The PM is the PM because he has a majority in parliament; therefore the monarchical PM will always get the president he wants.

The lawyers from the MLACR did not agree with me. I don’t know if they would still have their jobs if they did.

If the government has their way Jamaica will still be a monarchy; all we will have done us change the monarch.

What is the role of consensus in a democracy? If in the end the majority always wins, by definition there is no consensus. I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that “Democracy is 51 per cent of the people voting to take away the rights of the other 49 per cent”.

Is there a difference between democracy and the tyranny of the majority? In a republic do we replace tyranny from above (in a monarchy) with tyranny from below?

I wonder which wag quipped that “democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner”. The majority always wins, right?

Our politicians from both sides have been eating well for decades!

In a democracy the decisions taken cannot be for “my” benefit, for the good of the politicians themselves, the party members, and the political donors; decisions taken must be for “The Common Good”. And thus is where consensus comes in. Contention reigns when decisions benefit one set of people against another, one class over another. Winner take all! Decisions which benefit the common good are likely to be arrived at by consensus.

Jamaica’s new constitution must take us in the direction of consensus building towards the common good.

Is democracy “of the party, for the party, and by the party?” All ruling in the name of the people?

In truth, this is the only kind of democracy we have known in Jamaica. Political scientists would call this kind of indirect governance “by the people” as “pseudo-democracy”.

Is there another way of doing democracy that is closer to the ideal of “government of the people, by the people and for the people”? Or is it all just utopian idealism?

PROPAGANDA

When the Government announced that steps were going to be taken to reform Jamaica’s Constitution there was general approval, and calls for widespread consultation and public education on the issues. It is these sorts of questions that so many Jamaicans wanted discussed, to inform the reform process. None of that happened. What we get as “public education” is propaganda.

Another option is “direct democracy” or “participatory democracy” where the demos votes often. Only the Nordic countries, and Switzerland are true democracies, where referendums (I guess it should really be referenda) are common – several times each year. People are required to support (or reject) new legislation, and to comment on national policy. In Switzerland this year (2024) so far, two referenda were held on March 3 (one motion approved, one rejected), and four on June 9 (one approved, three rejected); further plebiscites will be held on September 22 and November 24 later this year.

Our politicians in Jamaica are afraid of referenda – are afraid of democracy – are afraid of rejection; they prefer monarchy, where they rule. As a result the Jamaican people are disengaged from the political process, from the governance of their country. Our new constitution must create governance arrangements which will engage the majority of us Jamaicans.

The effective functioning of a democracy depends on an electorate being reasonably well informed on the issues, who are committed to seek the common good (rather than selfish ends), and who are willing to seek consensus-based solutions. One way of guaranteeing a perverted democracy is to offer the electorate substandard education, devoid of critical thinking skills and ethical science. Serial governments have been good at this!

We need to restart the process of constitutional reform; and do it right this time!

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