Peter Espeut | The wages of ginnalship

“The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.

Some constitutional amendments require substantial consensus between the two political parties, and some do not. The Opposition has leverage when it comes to deeply entrenched matters, which require huge majority votes in both houses of parliament and in a national referendum. But in ordinary matters where the government has a huge majority in the Lower House, they can pretty much do what they want without the agreement of the opposition. In fact, with a huge majority in the House, the government can completely ignore the Opposition and the wishes of civil society.

The Andrew Holness government, with its 49 seats in the Lower House to the Opposition’s 14 seats, finds itself in such a position.

So when the government declared that it intended to make significant changes to Jamaica’s Constitution, red flags started flying, and alarm bells started to go off. Since the price of liberty is eternal vigilance, the whole process required careful scrutiny. Too much is at stake.

Constitutional reform can deepen our democracy (with more “kratos” for the “demos” – power for the people), or it can concentrate more power in the hands of politicians, deepening authoritarianism, and driving us towards dictatorship. Vigilance needed!

Once I heard that the strategy the government was pursuing was a two-phase approach, where in Phase I only matters to do with removing the British monarch as our head of state, and repatriating our Constitution were under discussion, with all other matters left for Phase II, I was convinced that ginnalship was at work – big time!

This approach requires the bare minimum of consensus – only on matters requiring a referendum. The Opposition and civil society – including the Church – are asked to support the removal of the monarchy with no guarantees or even serious discussion about other important matters that the ruling party could push through Parliament without any consensus. At that point, civil society – including the Church – would have no leverage to prevent the government from amending the Constitution to give themselves more power. That is the ginnalship!

For maximum public buy-in, all constitutional matters for reform should be discussed and agreed upon before the referendum, to avoid the “Puss innna bag” syndrome. Then we will all know what we are supporting.

BLAME THE PNP

And so I blame the People’s National Party (PNP) for going along with this Phase I-Phase II approach. I understand that all persons nominated to the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC) were required to agree with the two-phased approach as a precondition for appointment. The PNP should not have named any members to the CRC unless everything was done in one phase. Maybe they were samfied by the ginnalship of the government, I don’t know. But better late than never.

And then there was ginnalship in choosing the members of the CRC, where the minister chose persons to “represent” the Church, the youth, and civil society. Why not ask those sectors to name their own representatives? Why didn’t she also select the PNP “representatives”? Once I saw how the CRC was created, my expectations fell. How can we expect to deepen our democracy if the minister of constitutional affairs does not know the meaning of true democratic representation? The PNP should not have agreed to participate in such a kangaroo operation. Their commitment to true democracy is also in question.

Even within a two-phased approach, there are many options in Phase I, e.g., ceremonial president vs executive president? Will Jamaica have both a president and a prime minister? How will the president be chosen? Can Jamaica’s president be a dual citizen, and of where? What should be the powers of Jamaica’s president? What checks and balances should be imposed on the power of the president? And so many more issues. What a wonderful opportunity for public discussion and public education!

CONSENSUS

But we were told that consensus on all these matters had already been achieved, and only one issue remained: whether the president would be selected by two-thirds of both houses of parliament sitting jointly or separately. More ginnalship again, this time by both sides!

How can the two parties sit in a private room and come to national consensus among just the two of them? Two-party consensus has led to laws where the assets of politicians are declared in secret, political donations are made in secret, and where the names of persons who enter into contracts with the government are a state secret. I get worried when our two main political parties agree on anything!

The Jamaican people called for public education on our present Constitution, public discussion on the options going forward, and public consultation before there was any claim of consensus. It hasn’t happened! The ginnalship here is that the government is claiming that a few 30-second jingles equates to public education, and that three (what they call) “town halls”, where the CRC advises the small audience of what they plan to do, equated to public consultation. No one is fooled!

Now we hear that the CRC has prepared a Phase I Report which has been sent to Cabinet for their approval. Obviously the CRC members have come to agreement on the one unresolved issue, but the public knows not what that agreement is. There could have been very little public input into that decision, and in the overall content of the report.

We are told that the report will now be tabled in the House, and go before a joint select committee of both houses of parliament for discussion. The PNP protests that their long-standing red-line issue of the Caribbean Court of Justice, and other issues which they have latterly raised, have not been properly considered by the CRC. But what about the lack of public education and public consultation? They should refuse to sign the report because of the flawed procedures and the ginnalship! They are also to blame.

This is where we are with the current effort at reforming Jamaica’s Constitution. It has not really properly begun.

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