Google Ads

Showing posts with label Jamaican Constitution. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jamaican Constitution. Show all posts

Friday, September 16, 2011

Thoughts on Jamaica's 50th anniversary

By FRANKLIN W KNIGHT




The approach of the 50th anniversary of Jamaican independence provides an appropriate time to review and perhaps revise the way Jamaica is governed. Thinking about the structure of government does not require the approach of a significant year, but anniversaries are always an opportune moment for assessment. How has the country done in the past 50 years since it took control of its own affairs? What institutions are not working at all? What is working well? What could be made better?

One place to start is with the constitution hastily written in 1961 to respond to the self-made emergency following the unexpected collapse of the West Indian Federation that was carefully designed to shepherd a number of Caribbean units into an awkward form of independence. But the principal goal of the federation was to relieve Great Britain of the administrative costs of empire. British Caribbean independence was not designed to secure the future happiness and well-being of the citizens of the Caribbean. To guarantee their goal, the British promised that any territory that felt it could make it on its own was free to do so. With the premature collapse of the federation, Jamaica, along with Trinidad and Tobago, opted for independence and needed constitutions to legalise the process.

In 1776 the British North American colonies initiated the idea of a written constitution as a prelude to political independence. It was a rationale for change that tried to do two things. The first was to synthesise some core values and guiding principles of just government. The second was to lay out the guidelines for structuring and regulating the good society. Since then every group of citizens wishing to construct a modern state has outlined its history, culture, hopes and expectations in a form of written constitution. That is what Jamaica did in 1961.

The Jamaica constitution quite properly tried to capture what it felt were the basic values and principles of the country at the time. In that it did a good job. It recognised that Jamaica was a demographically diverse country with roots in Europe, Africa, Asia and the Americas. It had a culture that was an eclectic and creolised blend of the various peoples who made the island their home over centuries or who had recently arrived. Jamaican culture was not like a pizza with a choice of exotic toppings. Rather, it was like a delicately constructed cake with discernible ingredients all delightfully melded together. That conviction is reflected in the island's motto, "Out of many One people" as well as in the symbolic colours of the national flag. That intrinsic diversity is still exalted as a desirable virtue.

Jamaicans also hold a deep respect for popular democracy, deriving from its curious history. Jamaica was not always a democracy. Indeed, the original British representative legislature was neither representative nor democratic. But neither was the British Parliament before the Great Reform Act of 1832. Fortunately for Jamaica, the English residents who structured the government of the colony after its capture from the Spanish in 1655 were not the viable critical mass needed to develop and retain the sort of bourgeois proclivities of the white property holders in British North America. The Jamaican legislature accepted free non-whites and Jews as bona fide members as long as they met the eligibility requirements. They were not happy with the result but they had no choice.

Then in 1865 the Jamaica Assembly did a remarkable thing. Rather than expand its representation it abolished itself. That was a lesson in self-preservation that was not lost on the masses. Political control, it learned, was the most important instrument in ensuring social cohesion and common justice. By the time that Jamaica began universal adult suffrage in 1944 a popular democracy was being practised widely by hundreds of organisations across the island. Teachers, small farmers, dockworkers and various other groups of workers formed mutual aid associations hoping to improve their common condition.

Jamaican democracy is founded on the unswerving conviction that the legitimacy of any government rests on the overt approval of the people expressed in free, fair, and open elections. The government is not only responsible to the people; it is also the principal protector of those people. It is benefactor and surrogate parent. This conviction crosses all social and economic divisions and ties the elites to the masses, unlike many other countries where governments are divorced from the people. When governments work well it results in genuine accountability. Governments that fail to meet the expectations of the people are usually rejected at the polls.

The weakness in this apparently sound principle of government resides in the written constitutional form that privileges the two founding political parties, the PNP and the JLP, which have controlled the political process since 1944. As constitutionally structured, especially in a first-past-the-post electoral system, parties other than the PNP and the JLP do not have a fair chance of winning sufficient representation to form a government. These parties have been monumental failures since 1962. Yet a good constitution should cater to a wider representation of views than just those of the PNP and the JLP.

As Jamaica approaches its 50th anniversary, now is as good a time as any to rethink the constitution. What Jamaica needs is a responsive procedure that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of its citizens. Because democracy is not a perfect form of government - there is no perfect form of democracy - then from time to time it needs to be modified and re-calibrated to serve the majority of the people. Nothing could serve the people of Jamaica better than a major discussion in the next year about the constitutional basis of its government and how it may be improved. As the poet Tennyson wrote: "The old order changes yielding place to new; and God fulfils himself in many ways lest one good custom should corrupt the world." Change is inevitable. Jamaica's present and future depend on periodically reconciling its political institutions to its new realities.

September 14, 2011

jamaicaobserver

Monday, December 7, 2009

Mixed reviews for the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ)

Mark Beckford, Staff Reporter





Susan Goffe, chairperson, Jamaicans for Justice.




Despite assurances from the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) about measures put in place for the independence of the court, Susan Goffe of Jamaicans for Justice is expressing some concern about how it is administered.

Goffe noted that while there was a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission to oversee the selection of judges, the arrangements do not go far enough to ensure the legitimacy and security of the court.

Goffe added that more changes are needed to secure the independence and permanence of the court than the amendments already made to the Treaty of Chaguaramas. This treaty is the agreement between the Caribbean states, setting up the CCJ, among other things.

Goffe believes that any legitimisation of the court should be done by enshrining whatever changes there should be in the Jamaican Constitution. With that said, she believes serious national discourse should begin.

Judiciary independence vital

Answers to concerns about the independence of the court from manipulation are posted on the CCJ website.

"It is generally accepted in our societies that independence of the judiciary is a vital and essential ingredient of the rule of law, a basic principle of social engineering in CARICOM member states.

"To ensure independence of the members of the court, appropriate provisions have been elaborated in the agreement establishing the CCJ to provide for credible institutional arrangements," the website read.

It continued: "First, unlike the situation with the European Court of Justice, where Judges are appointed by the ministers of government, judges of the CCJ are appointed by a Regional Judicial and Legal Services Commission, whose composition should offer a reasonable degree of comfort to the court's detractors."

The funding of the court by member states of CARICOM has also raised the spectre of influence by these same states. However, the CCJ on its website said that certain steps have been put in place to ensure that this does not occur.

"In order to pre-empt this eventuality, the heads of government have mandated the ministers of finance to provide funding for the recurrent expenses of the court for the first five years of its operation."

A trust fund has been established and capitalised in the sum of US$100 million, so as to enable the recurrent expenditure of the court to be financed by income from the fund which is administered by the Caribbean Development Bank.

Former Solicitor General Michael Hylton said this provision has earned his confidence in the court.

Beyond the rules

"Political influence doesn't mean that a politician is going to call you and tell you what to do, but if a country doesn't like a judgment, it can withdraw its payment. This cannot occur under the treaty and with the trust fund that is set up," he said.

Attorney-at-law R.N.A Henriques, however, believes that independence goes beyond just putting in rules.

"We have had a history in Jamaica, where the bias of rulings are in favour of the government in cases. Therefore one is not really insulated by a Constitution. The dispensation of the rulings will be based on integrity not by what is in the constitution. Time will tell, that is why it is important that the judges are of a certain calibre."


December 7, 2009


caribdaily