Westminster model has not worked for Jamaica

THE EDITOR, Madam:

Nowhere in the news reports that I have read or listened to, concerning the utterances of the various elder statesmen and current political leadership, have I seen any suggestion that the views of ordinary Jamaicans be heard on the form of government to be adopted. In fact, it seems that there is general consensus among these persons that we should retain the Westminster model, with a largely ceremonial head of state and that the current parliamentary arrangements be retained.

Barbados becoming a republic has been the catalyst for the current debate. Barbados justifiably chose to retain the Westminster model because it has served them well politically, economically and socially; our experience has been very different. The state of our economy and the ills that plague our society are ample evidence that the Westminster model of government has failed miserably to deliver for the majority of Jamaicans. As such, I would argue that we, the ordinary citizens of this country, should seriously considered a change to an executive head of state, with a clear separation from the legislature.

The question of the choice between retaining the Westminster model or adopting an executive presidency model of government must be put to the people of this country in a referendum for us to decide. Any proposal to foster an agreement between the prime minister and the Leader of the Opposition upon the people of this country, without any other choice, is arrogant, disrespectful, and must be forcefully resisted.

I find it most distasteful that these politicians seem to have forgotten that in a democracy, their power and influence are derived from the people and that they have power and influence because we, the people, gave it to them. Further, that on as fundamental a constitutional question as this, we, the people, must be consulted. After all, the prime minister and the Opposition leader are but two, and we are more than two million.

ALWYN GREGORY