Peter Espeut | From subjects to citizens

On Wednesday I heard an ugly rumour: that the Holness administration wants a “NO!” vote in the coming referendum on whether Jamaica should ditch the monarchy in favour of a republic. I don’t know whether the rumour is true or not, but the way the government is handling the process of constitutional change may guarantee a “NO!” vote.

I heard Lt Gen Rocky Meade, one of the cochairs of the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC), explaining that the reason the meetings are being held in secret is that the members need to familiarise themselves with previous deliberations. I would have thought that was the best reason to live-stream the meetings, as the Jamaican public also need to be made aware of those previous discussions.

I heard the Minister of Information Robert Nesta Morgan defending the indecent haste with which the government is proceeding (they plan to table a constitutional bill next month) by spinning something to the effect that “first you accuse us of taking too long to get rid of the monarchy, and now you accuse us of going too fast”. Surely the unconscionable procrastination by both our major political parties over decades is no excuse to now rush this crucial exercise. Proverbially, haste makes a waste of time.

Last week on the TVJ programme All-Angles, the host Dionne Jackson-Miller tried to extract from Marlene Malahoo Forte, minister of legal and constitutional affairs, details about any schedule of public consultations which might exist, because public consultations should form an essential part of any constitutional reform process. Dionne was unsuccessful, and at the end of the programme the minister stated that by asking those questions Dionne had “damaged the process”.

A week later the first (we are told) in a series of “town hall meetings” was hastily held in Montego Bay.

DAMAGING OWN PROCESS

My point is that the government is damaging their own process by the secrecy with which they are proceeding, and the absence of planned public education and public consultation.

In the meantime, news out of the secret Constitutional Reform Committee is that they have achieved “consensus” on all the main issues: we will have a ceremonial president. Isn’t it a remarkable coincidence that the two major political parties had earlier come to the same “consensus”?

I understand that the constitutional reform bill to be tabled in the House next month has already been drafted based on this “consensus”. Genuine public consultations are therefore pointless! What we may have are public relations exercises where the government tells the public what it is going to do, not asking the public how they wish the Jamaican republic to be structured. It is this approach that will guarantee a “NO!” vote in any referendum.

Jamaica’s prime minister has more legal power than the president of the USA, or even the UK prime minister. Jamaica’s PM can call a general election when it suits him or his party without consulting anyone. Both the USA and the UK have fixed election dates; in an emergency congress/parliament can postpone them, not the president or the PM.

The Jamaican PM can name the governor general, the chief justice and the cabinet without heeding any advice from anyone. In the United States presidential nominations of posts like this have to be confirmed after hearings which interrogate the nominee.

Presently, our governor general appoints (and promotes) judges, civil servants, teachers and police officers after advice from various services commissions (like the Judicial Services Commission); but the truth is that all these commissions are appointed by the governor general on the advice of the prime minister, who in instructing the governor general who to appoint, does not have to heed any advice he may receive from anyone. Jamaica does have a real monarch who exercises absolute authority; and that monarch is the prime minister.

In a monarchy all are subjects of the monarch. In Jamaica today we are all subjects of the monarchical prime minister. Genuine constitutional reform will transform us from subjects into citizens.

ABSOLUTE POWER

Getting rid of King Charles III will not disturb the almost absolute power of Jamaica’s real monarch. Replacing Jamaica’s ceremonial governor general with a ceremonial president will not disturb the almost absolute power of Jamaica’s real monarch. All of us will remain subjects.

In any government, someone by whatever title has to wield executive authority. But the task of a constitution is to constrain the absolute power of the executive – usually through the legislature – and to guarantee an independent judiciary. Our present constitution does not do that.

Presently, the executive has captured the legislature. Normally, legislation is introduced by the portfolio minister, and “private members’ motions” languish. Legislators are under the thumb of the monarchical prime minister, hankering after cabinet posts. They are literally “subject” to him!

Often a prime minister has to search hard among the elected parliamentarians for scarce managerial talent to preside over ministries. Once a legislator becomes a cabinet minister, his constituency sees him less.

Our new constitution must guarantee separation of powers such that the legislature and the judiciary serve as a check on the executive; the executive president must be able to choose the best managers from among the citizens of the country – excluding parliamentarians – and these must be able to survive confirmation hearings with questions from parliamentarians and the public. And after appointment, the executive – president and cabinet – must be subject to the scrutiny of the people and their parliamentary representatives.

To be meaningful, getting rid of the monarchy must transform us from subjects into citizens. Read up on the French Revolution. Monarchical prime ministers and cabinet ministers will not surrender their thrones easily. Be prepared for a struggle.

But beware of the replacement of one monarch by another with a different name.

And if you are not registered to vote, then sign up today. Your country may need your “NO!” vote to ensure that Jamaica moves forward.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleaner.com