Wooing Jamaican diaspora into national service

I note that the prime minister has reopened the discussion on reincorporating Jamaicans living in the diaspora into Jamaican economic and political life. I would like to begin by stating that I think that the furore and righteous indignation that surround this dual-citizenship issue are overblown and smack of hypocrisy.

Let me be clear lest anyone get it twisted: I am not saying that the issue in and of itself isn't important, but that all the hullabaloo and 'bangarang' is unnecessary.

What exactly is the issue? Is it about being foreign born, swearing allegiance, being a member of a non-Commonwealth nation? To whom should it apply? Should it apply to the prime minister, members of parliament, councillors, government workers, board appointees, judges, lawyers, policemen? What was the intent of the framers of the Constitution? Is it relevant in today's globally connected world?

I believe that the issue first needs to be defined and then the pros and cons of the argument discussed. We should rely more on the facts and less so on emotions. Admittedly, national issues such as the national anthem, colours of our flag, national heroes are indeed emotional topics (as is dual versus non-dual citizenship). This, however, does not recuse us from attempting to have a reasoned discussion on the topic.

In order to define the issue, we Jamaicans should first ask ourselves the following questions: Who is the typical politician and what motivates him to get into politics? Based on our own experience, 49 years post Independence, I am sure we can come up with our own best guesses. Though totally unscientific, I suggest here that the typical political 'animal' could be described by three broad characterisations.

Types of political animals

First, there are the public servants. These are the statesmen and women who are 'called' to serve their fellow man. These individuals typically look far beyond the one- or two-term political horizon. They are big thinkers, philosophers, non-tribal, loyal to country first and party second.

The next group I will call the tribalists. These are the born and bred '-ites', '-ists' or '-ades' (pick your colour). You know the types: "My grandfather, uncle, mother, father was a -ite, so naturally I am one too." For them, the route towards national development is driven by the political processes and subsequent policies of their party. It is quite likely that these individuals put party first and country second.

Then there are the opportunists, some of whom may be prone to switching sides when it suits them. One could argue that this group sees political involvement as a mechanism to line their pockets and the pockets of their friends and family, former university colleagues, batchmates, etc. The evidence may suggest that they are driven by personal gain. Many of them enter representational politics after spending time in the trenches as hangers-on, 'advisers' and party workers.

My own gut feeling is that today's Jamaican politicians could easily be described by possessing various levels of one or more combinations of the above-mentioned characteristics. To be honest, I can't say I have seen many examples of the first category (public servant/statesperson) in recent memory. I would like you to keep in mind, my loose characterisations above while I briefly examine one of the usual arguments against dual citizens serving in Parliament. Please note I am not a constitutional scholar nor am I a legal luminary.

It is my understanding that the majority of recent cases in the courts were applicable to US passport holders. As a result, most of the public's arguments have been framed within this context.

One of the oft-heard arguments against dual citizenship is: "What is to stop them from picking up and running away when the going gets tough?" Well, if you are going to use this as an argument against someone becoming an MP, what is to stop anyone, US passport holder or not, from doing the same? Suppose, for example, the politician in question decides to run away to another Caribbean island, Europe, an Africa country?

In addition, what is to stop any Jamaican (foreign passport or not) from abandoning his post or constituency and going back to private life? Furthermore, so what if they decide to leave? Someone else worthwhile will take their place! If you are to use this argument, what is to stop any Antigua-, Pakistan-, Canada- or Britain-born 'Jamaican' MP from doing the same? What about green card holders? Are you going to apply the same rules?

You might ask, how does this relate to the three categories of politicians I previously described? Let me try to explain. Based on my observations, I would argue that most of our politicians over the course of our 49 years of Independence have been represented by individuals with varying combinations of the tribalist (diehards) and opportunist (sycophants and nepotists) categories and less so of the statesman/woman.

Corrupted along the way

Some may have entered with the statesman frame of mind, but somewhere along the way got tainted or left politics or public life in frustration. Where has this got us? It has got us negative growth, garrisons, scandals on both sides of the political divide, political apathy and the continued disenfranchisement of significant sectors of our society. Now bringing back 'foreigners' is no panacea for all our ills, but a way must be found to incorporate persons willing to serve their nation of birth. This, without necessarily forcing them to eliminate what may quite possibly have been an economic decision rather than a patriotic one. I should clarify that I am not suggesting we 'free up di ting' and 'run wid it'; no, but discussions towards a solution should continue.

I would like to suggest a solution. Might we want to consider some sort of tiered approach? That is, the further up the governmental hierarchy you go, the more you will be required to relinquish, vis-à-vis dual citizenship. If the goal is to recruit the best and brightest, why not recruit these individuals to serve in local government as councillors and mayors, in central government, e.g. CEOs of quasi-government agencies and permanent secretaries. I would even go further to suggest that dual-passport holders should be able to sit in the Senate or even be junior ministers.

The next tier would require individuals to renounce any sworn allegiances if they want to serve as, let's say, head of the police or defence force, full ministers of government and, of course, as 'Chief Servant'. I believe taking this approach would encourage true patriots home and abroad to serve but would allow individuals to make personal decisions on how much they are willing give up or sacrifice as time passes. Much in the same way say a private-sector executive (let's use Don Wehby, as an example) may weigh the pros and cons when making a decision to serve and leave if he/she so chooses. My point is, the argument that "these people can pack up and run" just cannot cross it.

Addressing this will require constitutional reform, something we have been dithering with for decades. Addressing Section 40 is key to this, and it may need to be amended because as it reads - "that persons who, by their own act, are under allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state" - it is subject to various forms of interpretation (Sharon Hay-Webster's case is one example).

By the way, what will happen to the UK and Commonwealth passport holders when we finally stop swearing allegiance to the Queen? Constitutional reform should also seek to further enshrine transparency and accountability. This may assist in counteracting corruption and nepotism and could create disincentives for Category Three political individuals (tribalists) entering politics. We need to attract more statesmen and women to public service - country first, I say.

A tiered approach to this dual-citizenship issue may well help move us forward in the next 50 years. The inclusion of persons who are potentially less prone to corruption and who may be untainted from the local crab-in-a-barrel realities may result in more reasoned governance, less partisanship and coalition governance structures seen elsewhere (third parties and independent candidates).

As stated earlier, this is an emotional topic so I will close with some excerpts from our powerful national anthem. Please note the relevant lines that speak to encouraging national participation - "Stir response to duty's call"; visionary thinking - "Give us vision lest we perish"; and constitutional reform - "Justice, truth be ours forever", Jamaica, land we love.

Peter E.T. Edwards, PhD, is a marine scientist, environmental economist and policy analyst. He is currently employed as a consultant for a US federal environmental management agency in the USA (and, for the record, has not sworn allegiance to any foreign power). Email feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com