A.J. Nicholson | ‘Descendant of enslavers’ – beam in whose eyes?

With Mark Golding leading one of the political parties seeking to hold the reins of power, potentially becoming the head of government, it was perhaps inevitable that his position as a “descendant of the enslavers”, whether true or false, would be raised as an issue in the forthcoming national elections.

The issue has loomed, with the projected messages wrapped up in ‘Markie British’ and ‘Massa Mark’, for example, sent far and wide across the land.

Without apology, it has been placed squarely as a campaign issue by two Jamaica Labour Party members of parliament in these terms: Is it appropriate for a descendant of enslavers to be allowed to rule over descendants of the enslaved who make up the majority of Jamaica’s citizenry?

There is nothing inappropriate in embarking upon that discussion. Such a discourse can generate rich, developmental benefits provided a mature and culturally-aware approach is embraced.

However, it is not an issue to be trifled with. Lasting deleterious effects can ensue from a shallow, injudicious route being pursued by thoughtlessly casting that question on the provocative, incitive platform of racism of “the White Englishman running Jamaica”.

The mature, developmental approach must begin at the heart of the matter with a proper grasp and understanding of “what is in place”.

As the very first positive step, there must be an honest examination of whether there is any glaring beam that our leaders of the descendants of slaves have long been neglecting, nay have blatantly refused, to remove from their own eyes.

Has the question been answered, particularly by the governing party which has injected the question into the campaign: Where in our structure of government do the paths of the descendants of both enslavers and enslaved intersect?

There has to be sober reflection on the fact that their paths cross at the very apex of our system of government.

There, though King Charles III, head of state, remains a serene figurehead, his advisers, the judges of his court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, descendants of enslavers, occupy the pinnacle of one of Jamaica’s branches of government, the Judiciary.

On the matter of ‘running Jamaica’, Englishmen, descendants of slave masters, have the ultimate say on the interpretation to be accorded to laws passed by members of our Legislature, overwhelmingly descendants of slaves.

FINAL WORD

That court of His Majesty, himself descended from traders in slaves, sitting in London, inaccessible to the vast majority of our citizens, has the final word on the guilt or innocence of their petitioners, descendants of slaves. Not even a prime minister has such powers.

English judges have the final word on the decisions of our judges and our juries, among the awesome non-transferable powers which, in our machinery of government have always been exercisable by former enslavers and their descendants.

Changes to be made to those constitutional arrangements fall exclusively to the political parties to find common ground for a consensual special majority vote to be taken in the Legislature.

The courts have declared that the head of the Jamaica Labour Party, as Opposition Leader, committed an unprecedented breach of our Constitution in order to prevent a proposed change to remove those powers from Englishmen, progeny of slave masters.

That change would have served for the grant by caring, just legislators to connected descendants of the enslaved of the privilege of access to their final court, denied to generations for near two hundred years.

Irony of ironies: the Jamaica Labour Party which has unashamedly withheld support for that change to be effected now seeks to have those whom they have long denied access to their court of last resort, vote against “the White Englishman running Jamaica”.

Mature thinking is far too often distant from decisions taken by political parties seeking to satisfy their own selfish ends, brushing aside what is in the best interests of the people and institutions of society.

The representative of the Jamaica Labour Party has frankly admitted that the reason for placing this issue on the campaign agenda is that they consider that the race card had been played against their former leader, Edward Seaga.

Since they perceive that to have been inappropriate and unfair, why move to perpetuate such a wrong, following the thoroughly depressing, unhelpful tit-for-tat pattern which, has been openly pursued by both parties?

Surely, the aim of the campaign ought to be for a judgement to be made by the electorate concerning which set of policies projected by the political parties anchors their decision on who is best suited for “running Jamaica”.

Months ago, it was announced from George William Gordon House that the prime minister would “in short order” address the issue of the descendants of enslavers occupying the pinnacle of our Judiciary arm of government.

That address has not come to pass. It was expected to be directed at removal from the eyes of those in leadership of the dreadful beam that denies their kindred descendants of slaves unhindered access to a court of last resort.

In like manner, will we never be privileged to hear from the leader of the ruling Jamaica Labour Party concerning the incendiary racist projections coming from his party colleagues?

Certainly, a meaningful, mature rebuke is what is required and expected from a wise and just leader!

A.J. Nicholson is former minister of justice of Jamaica. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com