Gordon Robinson | ‘I’ll keep the king and my identity’

Norman Manley Law School and Jamaican Bar Association are simultaneously celebrating 50th Anniversaries.

So I attended a jointly produced forum on the current Constitutional Reform process. Three panellists were advertised but I was disappointed when Bruce Golding was unable to attend due to (hopefully temporary) illness. For me he was the main attraction because, in my opinion, no other living parliamentarian is as knowledgeable on the Constitution.

At the forum iconic legal luminary and constitutional law expert Lloyd Barnett advised strongly we should take the path of least resistance by ensuring, in the first phase, that we remove the King and abolish Buckingham Palace’s Order in Council to which our current Constitution is a mere attachment. He also supported removal of the Privy Council but this lofty ideal was relegated by him into a category that included impeachment and recall elections (both he opposed), which he said would be impractical because consensus would be too difficult to achieve.

So Lloyd Barnett is a proponent of the well-known, convenient political philosophy of gradualism. As I said to him at the forum, this mantra that insists we don’t try because it’s hard is one the world should be grateful didn’t include Martin Luther King or Nelson Mandela (among others) as subscribers. I asked him what we’d achieve if we just removed the King; repealed the Order in Council; then passed the resulting Constitution as a Jamaican document. His response was we would be claiming our identity.

Sigh.

Out of complete, unconditional respect for the great Lloyd Barnett, I left it there. But I do have a message for him and all other proponents of gradualism in the context of a governance system forced upon us by colonial masters that we are only now moving to reform (allegedly).

I don’t need any piece of paper to define or give me my identity. I know who I am. As Buju proclaimed:

No matter where in this world I go

I am a Jamaican!

From a reformed constitution I want more accountability, less corruption and more democracy.

More accountability includes introducing constitutional systems to eliminate current Prime Ministerial dictatorship that allows Government to ignore a Code of Conduct prepared by the independent Integrity Commission (IC); prepare its own Code; and write and pass in parliament self-created job descriptions all without a scintilla of consultation with the people who hired them as MPs. If we allow this it’ll prove we remain mentally enslaved after four hundred years of physical slavery and sixty years of further bondage by slave masters’ governance system infecting us with Stockholm Syndrome.

More Accountability includes vetting and approval of Executive appointments by the People’s parliamentary representatives and subsequent close monitoring of executive action by the same Parliament empowered, where necessary, to impose sanctions. Sanctions can include refusal to pass unjust or unconstitutional laws; joint select committee hearings into suspect executive action; impeachment of any member of the Executive for major breaches of political ethics and recall elections for MPs.

Less corruption can be achieved by constitutional entrenchment of IC; preventing government spending by MPs; and parliamentary control of budgeting that excludes cabinet from parliamentary consideration of cabinet’s budgetary proposals except by invitation.

While on corruption reduction I must address another dangerous sub-set of the political treachery currently taking place by way of parliamentary attack on IC which, ironically, is itself a creation of Parliament. This irony, in my opinion, makes the attacks simultaneously masochistic and disloyal.

The sub-set of which I speak is the ludicrous notion that the Auditor General (AudGen) should be removed from IC because of “conflict of interest”.

Really? Seriously?

It seems intellect, clear thought and common sense has flown the parliamentary coop. I opine this because it’s clear to me none of the proponents of this rubbish has any clue what comprises a “conflict of interest”. AudGen has no personal interest in the performance or outcomes of either office’s operations.

NONE!

So it’s impossible for there to be any conflict of interest. AudGen is a constitutional officer with constitutional duty to annually audit every government department’s accounts and to report on same to the Speaker. If AudGen had an interest in an IC investigation (e.g. if she was also a government contract awardee) then she could be accused of having a conflict of duty and interest but NOT a conflict of interest. In that unlikely event she should simply recuse herself from that investigation.

The IC is a statutory Body mandated by Parliament to perform certain duties including investigating, prosecuting and preventing corruption. It also monitors the award of government contracts.

The. Integrity. Commission. Has. Zero. Auditing. Function!

So there can be no conflict of duties between the offices of AudGen and IC. There can be no conflict of duty and interest as, subject to currently non-existent proof to the contrary, AudGen has no personal interest in the operations of either Authority. There definitely, certainly, categorically can be no conflict of interest. It would be hilarious were it not so sad that parliamentarians desperately trying to have us believe they are so concerned about AudGen’s phantom conflict of interest are chief exemplars of conflict by drafting and approving a Code governing their own conduct!

Can parliamentarians now stop this ridiculous, irrational cass-cass and get on with their jobs? For pity’s sake you work for us in the green pastures of Jamaica; IC is your shepherd on the path to righteousness. Be still.

Of what can you be afraid?

More democracy includes more government by the people hence more voting and less whimsical appointment. So our President and/or PM should be directly elected regardless of function. Why are we clinging to the tiresome notion that, once JLP/PNP (very much in the minority today) agree on who should be given a $34 million parachute into Kings House, we should be happy like good little subjects? Why can’t nominations from political parties, civic groups and independents be subject to a national vote? Why is JLP/PNP so afraid of democracy?

If we insist on having separate President and PM (which I strongly oppose) then at least let us vote directly for both. More democracy includes voting for MPs, PMs, Presidents, Senators (by proportional representation?) and Councillors (if we must maintain that incongruous British duplication of duties for a population 5% of England’s).

More democracy includes staggered elections so politicians can’t fall asleep for five years before making brief appearances and empty promises. If MPs, PMs and Senators had different length terms political leaders would be constantly on their toes (a.k.a. accountable to us). Currently 3,000 “Party Delegates” elect a future PM for 3 million people; and unelected Senators pass laws as if they were elected representatives despite being beholden ONLY to an unelected PM for their appointment.

Facile gradualism isn’t what We the People want or need. Gradualism is inherently disdainful of We the People. If we KNOW Jamaica needs fundamental change we have a divinely mandated obligation to our grandchildren to try to make that change. Now! No point waiting for Jamaica to plunge into civil disorder after 60 more years of the same old same old.

The problem is Government’s Constitutional Reform Process has it all ass-backwards. It decided, without consultation, to first pass a detailed Bill in Parliament including all provisions removing the King that need referendum. The fear is that, if we put too many things in that Bill, “No” votes will pour in even when “No-voters” might only object to one or two clauses in the Bill.

As I say, ass-backwards. The process should begin with deciding on political philosophy. Before any Bill is drafted, the public should be educated in simple terms about the divergent philosophies namely Westminster style (“parliamentary republic”) or separation of powers (“presidential republic”). Then Government should hold an indicative referendum (like the one this Government proposed on CCJ) asking which philosophy We the people prefer.

After a majority chooses a governance philosophy between separation of powers (simply defined as excluding MPs from cabinet and directly electing PM) or Westminster (Cabinet selected from Parliament) then a Bill is drafted to include ALL the details needed to implement the people’s philosophy. That Bill (after parliamentary debate and political “consensus”) can be put to We the People in referendum as nothing more than a fleshing out of the philosophy already chosen.

Stop using impossible “Consensus” on detail as a tool to achieve no real change. Stop telling us what you know we can and can’t do. Ask us what we want. I want more accountability; less corruption; and more democracy. If a new Constitution can’t deliver these three fundamentals, I say nuh badda wid it. I’ll keep the King AND my identity!

Peace and Love.

- Gordon Robinson is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com