Kay Osborne | Andrew Holness and Mark Golding: Time to choose Jamaica

The concerns raised about Prime Minister Holness’ sworn allegiance to His Majesty’s Privy Council and Opposition Leader Mark Golding’s dual citizenship are significant and deserve careful consideration. The concerns are not just a matter of partisan arguments, but a call for visionary and transformative leadership that safeguards our nation’s sovereignty and protects our national identity. The potential for divided loyalties and conflicts of interest in the context of Jamaica’s history makes it imperative for our political leaders to prioritise the nation’s identity, interests, and sovereignty above all else, and to appear to do so.

Three years ago on May 26, 2021, on swearing allegiance to His Majesty’s Privy Council, Prime Minister Holness read aloud and signed a solemn oath promising loyalty and service to the monarch, swearing “by Almighty God to be a true and faithful Servant unto The Queen’s (now King’s) Majesty”. Mr Holness promised to “reveal to the King all potentially harmful matters to the King’s interests and to keep secret such pertinent information he receives in carrying out his duties to the King, only sharing such information with the King or his designates”. Further, Mr Holness swore to assist and defend all civil and temporal rights on behalf of The King, as a faithful and true Servant of His Majesty ought to do.

Critics argue that Prime Minister Holness’ sworn allegiance to His Majesty’s Privy Council could significantly influence his decisions and actions, posing a grave threat to Jamaica’s sovereignty and independence. This potential compromise of our nation’s autonomy raises substantial concerns about the extent of Mr Holness’ commitment to the country, with far-reaching implications for the nation’s future.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch does create a conflict of interest, as Mr Holness is duty bound by solemn oath to be loyal to the UK’s monarch. Yet, as Jamaica’s prime minister, he is duty-bound to prioritise the nation’s sovereignty and independence rather than the sworn allegiance to a foreign power whose interests are not identical to Jamaica’s and, in certain instances, in severe conflict.

The conflict-of-interest charge concerns Mr Holness’ loyalty and, most assuredly, the essence of our nation’s independence. Membership in the Privy Council and swearing allegiance to the King perpetuate a colonial mentality that undermines Jamaica’s still hard fought for independence. The potential consequences of this divided loyalty are significant and could compromise our nation’s future.

Mr Holness’s loyalty oath raises urgent questions about his accountability to the Jamaican people, versus his commitment to a foreign monarch. Some critics argue that a Jamaican leader must prioritise national interests and identity over ties to colonial power, highlighting the fundamental democratic principle that leaders serve the people and are duty-bound to advance the people’s interests and not be duty-bound to serve the interests of a foreign monarch.

Prime Minister Holness’ consistent failure to declare his assets and interests, as required by law, exacerbates the potential treachery emanating from such split loyalties, thereby, undermining the people’s trust in his leadership, eroding the foundation of our country’s governance, and creating an untenable situation.

The Integrity Commission has repeatedly flagged Mr Holness’ statutory declarations, making it clear that his lack of compliance with the law sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the integrity of our institutions. Furthermore, as the head of government, he must set the highest standards of transparency and accountability. Nevertheless, the people of Jamaica have the power to demand better than Mr Holness provides. We require leadership that acknowledges and embodies the values of integrity, accountability, and transparency.

DUAL CITIZENSHIP

Critics argue that Opposition Leader Mark Golding’s decision to retain dual citizenship reflects a lack of commitment to Jamaica’s sovereignty. Also, as a political leader and prime minister aspirant, Mr Golding is duty-bound to represent the interests of Jamaica unequivocally. However, they argue that holding British citizenship could compromise Mr Golding’s ability to represent Jamaican interests fully, creating a significant conflict of interest. This potential conflict of interest is a primary concern, as it could lead to decisions favouring the richly resourced UK over the less-resourced Jamaica that already has endured the UK’s sustained victimisation.

Some argue that Mr Golding’s decision to retain dual citizenship makes him less accountable to the Jamaican people as, if needed, he has an easy escape route from challenges he might have been party to creating. Critics also argue that Mr Golding’s decision sends the wrong message, prioritising his personal connection to Britain over his responsibilities and sensibilities as a Jamaican political leader, a stance that does not align with the values needed for national leadership.

Mr Golding is reported to have said, in explaining his retention of dual citizenship, that being British is a part of his heritage. Nevertheless, given Jamaica’s bitter history of British slavery and colonisation, Mr Golding’s decision is not just a personal choice but a painful reminder of oppression and cultural erasure. Numerous Jamaicans have British ancestry because of slavery and colonisation, but this complex legacy is harrowing for the vast majority of citizens. The retention of British citizenship by a Jamaican political leader, especially in the context of Jamaica’s history of British slavery and colonisation, is a painful reminder of the past, a past that is still deeply felt and has left lasting scars on the nation’s psyche. Hence, Mr Golding’s decision can easily be seen as disregarding or minimising our historical and collective trauma, which remains central in much that is wrong with our country, and a great deal that is harmful to the citizenry today.

As a political leader, Mr Golding must prioritise Jamaican interests and identity, regardless of whether British citizenship (however attained) could bring certain benefits, such as access to a broader network and resources. This prioritisation is not just a suggestion but a crucial demand that the Jamaican public should make, to ensure the nation’s interests are not compromised.

Further, the citizenry expects and demands that the prime minister and opposition leader uphold the same high standard of loyalty and accountability to the Jamaican people. Renouncing Privy Council membership and the related loyalty oath to the King, and renouncing dual citizenship are crucial symbolic steps toward decolonisation and pivotal decisions that could shape Jamaica’s future and affirm its identity and independence. It is time for the nation’s political leaders to move beyond historical and personal ties and embrace a more contemporary, independent identity for Jamaica. Mr Holness and Mr Golding are duty-bound to set an appropriate example and prioritise singular allegiance to Jamaica’s interests and sovereignty.

Kay Osborne is a social commentator and global strategist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com