Using Westminster in our context

It's clear to me that most readers, especially those in the 50-and-under age demographic, are clueless as to the origins of the Westminster system of government; its principles; its effect; and, hence, why it hasn't worked in Jamaica in 50 years and won't in the future.

I've come to that conclusion because I won't conclude that the overflow of vitriol sent my way after my column ('Respect, please', March 22) was nothing more than a reflection of our tribal nature. If that's the case, we might as well all surrender and migrate. For example, for daring to express my overall admiration for Omar Davies, despite his errors of judgement as finance minister, I've been accused by one silly correspondent as follows:

"The problem with this country, I find, is that if we are benefiting from a system, albeit an unfair one, we seem not to judge carefully the implications of that system. Or is it that we don't care? All the evidence point (sic) to the fact that Dr Davies was our worst finance minister in history. Why do some people, like Mr Gordon Robinson, think he was the best? Could it be because they benefited?"

I wish I had. But, all who know me know that my investment choices (limited by the absence of disposable income) are made exclusively through the Caymanas Park totalisator and with bookmakers worldwide. I trust totes. They advertise a deduction from your investment before giving you a chance of retrieving the balance. 'Topanaris' financial institutions, on the other hand, promise 'interest' and then show none for you. Instead, they use your money to buy land or give to friends and relatives for get-rich-quick schemes. Before you know it, these fancy Ponzi schemes (some called 'banks') collapse, taking with them your principal, interest be damned. At least the tote entertains you and gives something back.

not a personal matter

Also, I'm constrained, in the apparently unnecessary framework of accuracy, to remind the correspondent that I didn't say he was "the best" (although he very well might be). What I wrote was:

"As with my JLP critique, this isn't a personal matter for me. Personally, for example, I've a lot of time, respect and admiration for Omar Davies, and he knows it. Despite his monumental cock-up of the financial crisis when he was still inexperienced, I believe he was, overall, a good finance minister. But, we live in a democracy, and my opinion, a minority one, doesn't count. The majority specifically rejected him and others."

But I digress. The quoted response exposes the correspondent's confusion between what a finance minister does (or can do) and what restrictions are placed on all of us by 'a system' in which we've unfortunately found ourselves. In 1962, mentally entrapped as we then were after 400 years of brainwashing about English perfection, our leaders decided (without consultation of any kind) that we'd adopt the English system of government. The following differences in our circumstances eluded them.

First, the Westminster system began because of the fundamental restriction of choice imposed by the country being a monarchy. In a monarchy, the Crown is sovereign and all the rest 'subjects'. To this day, there are no 'citizens' in England, only 'subjects'. The monarch holds all power, including all executive power. In the mid-17th century, the subjects rebelled and the monarchy was temporarily suspended during a bloody civil war which resulted in the execution of Charles I and the installing of Oliver Cromwell as a de facto monarch. When the real monarchy was reinstated under Charles II, Parliament was given more actual powers under an unspoken compromise and the monarchy eventually retreated to the figurehead status it enjoys today.

more of the same

But the legal position hasn't changed. The British Parliament now exercises the exclusive and all-encompassing power of the monarchy (in consultation with the monarch) and British 'subjects' have no say in the matter, except in a democratic election twice per decade.

Second, the Westminster system has worked in England for two reasons. One: tradition. They've had more than 350 years to hone and fine-tune the system and, in a nation whose prior experience was worse, this is seen as a significant improvement. This fine-tuning has resulted in the incorporation of many 'constitutional' conventions honoured as if writ in stone by a highly educated nation proud of its reputation for decency. Two: the sheer size of the British Parliament (650 MPs) ensures that the overwhelming majority of elected representatives have no chance of being Cabinet ministers and so will actually represent their constituencies.

That isn't so in Jamaica, where almost every government MP is a minister of some sort. So, we have a Parliament modelled off the British 'experience' but without any comparable history, seeking to impose the same style of authoritarian rule on a population of 'citizens' largely kept undereducated and underemployed and whose sole window of political self-expression comes once every five years in a general election. In this context, it's physiologically impossible for partisan political party interests to be submerged in favour of the interests of the nation, regardless of who your finance minister is, and judgements on finance ministers (and others) must be made in this context and not based on some airy-fairy ideal existing only in Utopia (or England).

It's in this context, whereby we're not permitted to make specific judgements on specific Cabinet members (except maybe in newspaper columns), that our election results must be interpreted, and this is why we can't use England, or exceptional English examples like Winston Churchill, to justify the repeated insult to our electorate perpetrated since 1980 whereby the sitting prime minister who is voted out simply waits patiently for the electorate to lose faith in his successor and to be forced to vote him in again. Because we don't have the benefit of voting for constituency representatives but must also vote for a concomitant Cabinet, a similar judgement must be made against all senior Cabinet ministers (not all Cabinet ministers), against whom it can safely be said that the popular vote was for eviction.

The situation is simple. Until we wake up to the reality that we need a change from Westminster, we must use Westminster in our context and not copy blindly from the British. We must decide whether we will allow ourselves to be treated like fools or whether we will demand respect. It's entirely up to us.

Peace and love.

Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.