Curtis Ward | Dual citizenship and the opposition leader’s decision

The question of dual citizenship has evolved into a vexing issue for Jamaicans at home and in the diaspora, perhaps for different reasons. Some really don’t care. I have heard some express displeasure that their loyalty to Jamaica, the land of their birth, is even being put into question, adding that many who now want to make a distinction have not demonstrated the loyalty they expect of others, particularly from members of the diaspora.

There are many self-serving reasons driving this discussion. While some reasons may be valid, the interests of a future Jamaica would be better served by the benefits of inclusion of all Jamaicans. The overall benefits of inclusion of all Jamaicans in the country’s future far outweigh the narrow reasons mooted.

The core issue is loyalty to Jamaica. I personally do not believe that having dual citizenship is a true measure of loyalty to Jamaica. I don’t recall any time in our history where anyone with dual citizenship has been proven to be disloyal to Jamaica. As a matter of fact, many Jamaicans with dual citizenship have, in the past, served Jamaica with the utmost loyalty. Always putting Jamaica first. Yet there are those with Jamaican citizenship only, who, deliberately or inadvertently, have caused havoc in the lives of tens of thousands Jamaicans. They ignore the deprivation and the suffering they see every day. Those who believe ‘silence is golden’ in these circumstances are grossly mistaken. Silence, sometimes, is seen as cowardice.

NARROW CONTEXT

We should recognise that this issue of dual citizenship was raised in a narrow context, particularly with regard to the leader of the Opposition, by the prime minister as a distraction from the real issues, which demand our full attention in Jamaica. The problems related to crime, safety, and security; the disastrous condition of our healthcare system; the failing education system; high prices for basic food and essential services; lack of housing for the poor and low-income Jamaicans, are the issues affecting people’s lives and in which the future of our country depends, are what we should be paying attention to. These are issues that have grown significantly worse in recent years. The Government has failed to offer any significant relief to the citizens who suffer these conditions in our society.

My question, therefore, is not how you judge loyalty. The answer will most likely be subjective and will vary accordingly. The core question for me is, who sacrifices more to serve the people? The logical answer must be the person who gives up more of the things he or she cherishes and puts serving the people’s interests above all else.

The recent example of the public brouhaha over the leader of the Opposition being pressured to make an artificial choice between honouring his father’s heritage or being loyal to Jamaica, the land of his birth and nurturing, should not have been an issue. But since it is, we should ask: Who makes the most sacrifice to serve the people of Jamaica? Is it the one who is asked to renounce the heritage of one’s father or mother to qualify to serve, or is it one who gives up nothing but benefits there from?

SAKE OF POWER

Further, how about those persons with only Jamaican citizenship who seek representational office for the sake of power or personal enrichment? Are we qualifying them in the same way we qualify those with dual citizenship? Do they have to demonstrate loyalty to Jamaica and to the rule of law, which is a bedrock of our nascent democracy? Are they upholding the oath they solemnly swear when they assume office? We are not! But shouldn’t we?

Many in Jamaica, including the media and political pundits, allowed themselves to be distracted from the real issues plaguing the country, by jumping on the dual citizenship band wagon. Proof that political distractions work even when the intentions are dubious and self-serving. Such actions are deceitful when used to distract attention away from one’s personal failures. But we fail when we ignore the intentions and objectives distraction.

When politicians cry foul about fake news, we must question whether the politicians and their acolytes are themselves guilty of proliferating fake news and when they obfuscate or lack transparency in their actions. We must be wary of the fouler who cries foul.

The political arena has become a place of low moral standards. We see this in the United States and many parts of the world. Sadly, Jamaica is not immune. Sometimes we even find ways to lower the standards even further. We tolerate malfeasance and immorality from political leaders. They are given immunity, whether deliberately or inadvertently, because the system allows it. Prosecution for breaking the laws of the country seems an eternity away from the laying of charges. Justice delayed is justice denied to the citizens of Jamaica.

Politicians who should be removed from office for criminal or immoral conduct remain in office because there is no provision in the law to remove them before the next polls. Delays in the justice system give them a free pass for years. The so-called constitutional reform process, the relevant means to address this issue, is deliberately omitting ‘removal from office’ to protect the politicians in charge of the process. Self-serving and self-preservation. A few voices have been raised but not enough and not loud enough.

Curtis Ward is former ambassador of Jamaica to the United Nations, with special responsibility for Security Council affairs. He is an attorney and international consultant on geopolitical and international security issues, and is an anti-corruption advocate. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.