EDITORIAL - The diaspora of democracy

The foreign Affairs minister, Dr Ken Baugh, is right about Jamaica's diaspora being a repository of capital, skills and contacts which can be leveraged for investment in, and the development of, Jamaica.

That is why this newspaper has long supported the efforts to nurture a formal diaspora movement and promoted the concept of Greater Jamaica.

An estimated three million Jamaicans and people of Jamaican descent live abroad, representing not only an economy substantially larger than that which exists on the island, but with a strong commitment to their home country. One crude, but very potent, measure of the importance of this country's diaspora is the approximately US$2 billion a year remitted to Jamaica, which is equivalent to our gross earnings from tourism and more than what is earned from bauxite/alumina, even during that industry's healthy periods.

It is against this backdrop that The Gleaner is concerned about the Government's recent moves to change the method by which members are elected to sit on the Diaspora Advisory Board, which is causing so much unease in our diaspora communities. That matter is expected to be a hot-button issue at next month's Diaspora Convention in Ocho Rios.

When the board was established early in the last decade, the idea was that it could have a maximum formal membership of 15, expanding as other territories joined the structured diaspora movement. At present, it comprises seven members - three representing the regions into which the United States is divided, and two each from Canada and Britain. They are elected at the movement's biennial convention.

Choosing the board members by direct election makes sense. It ensures some level of democratic participation in the choice of those who may have some influence over government policy, however marginal, in a context of limitations, practical and constitutional, on the representation in the political process of those of our citizens who live abroad.

strong-arm tactics?

But, as they say, democracy is often messy. In this case, the minister with responsibility for diaspora affairs has no choice in the membership of a board over whose selection, in normal circumstances, he or she would have absolute authority. And Jamaicans, as we know, can be cantankerous and opinionated, disregarding the sensibilities of the pompous, puffed-up and mighty - even ministers - in pursuing their case.

Minister Baugh argues that some Jamaicans in the diaspora who may not attend the convention feel disadvantaged, since their absence makes them ineligible for election to the advisory board. That, the minister says, informed the proposal canvassed by his deputy, Mrs Marlene Malahoo Forte, for the selection of two candidates in the regions, one of whom the minister would appoint to the board. The other would be an alternate.

The reason offered by Dr Baugh for the proposal may be truthful. However, the minister would understand that we, like others, are more than a bit sceptical.

We are aware of the wish of politicians to be in command of processes and in control of who they may have to work with on the Diaspora Advisory Board once those persons are elected at the conference. But, as we said, democracy is often messy.

We would suggest that the administration quietly retreat from this proposal and let it die at the conference.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.