Scrap dual-citizenship ban

Ken Jones, Contributor

The Member of Parliament for Central Kingston has raised again the need to settle the question of dual citizenship. I share his anxiety, perhaps for different reasons, to have our tardy representatives address the subject with dispatch and good sense.

It may be that Mr Thwaites just wants to see his parliamentary colleagues come clean; prove themselves compliant with constitutional requirements, or clear out of the honourable House. I am more interested in going further to have our politicians, of all stripes, come to the realisation that Section 40 of our creaking Constitution is a divisive element that encourages disunity among our nationals, retards the spirit of nationalism and deprives the country of the advantages to be gained when we live as one people out of many places.

Opposition to dual citizenship is an outdated posture often founded upon the unstable sands of mindless rivalry and competition for scarce benefits. In many cases, it arises from persistent mental slavery, which causes undue suspicion of brothers and sisters, particularly those who succeed. It is something that former imperial masters put into our Constitution, by force of the habit to divide and rule, rather than of necessity. Those who prescribed that clause for every one of their former colonial possessions do not impose it on themselves; and our leaders, mired in political argument are slinging mud instead of removing that which obstructs the development of a positive national spirit.

While mental slavery is causing us to spend millions of dollars settling disputes between two political parties over representational rights, the Europeans and other peoples in increasing numbers are emphasising that all their citizens, whether dual or not, are entitled to equal rights and justice, including the right to occupy elected office if that is the will of the people. This is a far more enlightened view than the benighted perception that when Jamaicans become naturalised citizens of another country, they are transformed into potential fifth columnists who can no longer be trusted to contribute faithfully to the welfare of their native land.

European standards for nationality are codified in the European Convention on Nationality (ETS No. 166), which has been in force since 2000. Article 17 of this Convention sets out the rights and duties related to multiple nationality; and it states: "Nationals of a state party in possession of another nationality shall have, in the territory of that state party in which they reside, the same rights and duties as other nationals of that state party.

Court ruling

Earlier this year, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights, made up of 17 judges from 17 different countries, unanimously declared that to ban dual citizens from standing for elections was wrong, and disproportionate with a government's desire to ensure loyalty of its members of parliament.

The ruling arose from an application lodged by a winning candidate, against his country's law to prevent him from taking his seat because he had not renounced his other nationality. A news release issued after the findings of the Court is interesting. It said in part:

"The president of the Liberal Democratic Party brought a constitutional complaint against Law no. 273. In May 2009, the Constitutional Court delivered a judgment finding the law to be constitutional, holding in particular that it did not prevent dual nationals from becoming MPs, as it offered them the possibility of complying with it by renouncing their other nationalities.

"Following his election to Parliament in April 2009, the applicant initiated a procedure to renounce his Romanian nationality in order to be able to take his seat. In his letter to the Romanian Embassy, he announced that he was forced to initiate the renunciation of his Romanian nationality, but indicated that he reserved his right to withdraw the letter after the judgment of the Grand Chamber ... Having regard to his letter, the Constitutional Court validated his mandate. In the new elections in July 2009 ... the applicant was re-elected as an MP, and his mandate was again confirmed after he had shown that a procedure to renounce his second nationality was pending ...

"The applicant complained that Law no. 273 interfered with his right to stand as a candidate in free elections and to take his seat in Parliament if elected, thus ensuring the free expression of the opinion of the people in the choice of legislature. He relied on Article 3 of Protocol No. 1. He also complained ... that he had been subjected to discrimination ... ."

The court said: " ... a review of practice across Council of Europe member states revealed a consensus that where multiple nationalities were permitted, the holding of more than one nationality should not be a ground for ineligibility to sit as an MP."

Second-class citizens

While descendants of serfs make second-class citizens of some of our Jamaican nationals, Migration Expert (UK) boasts of Britain's nationality entitlements. I cite the following excerpts from their website: "British citizenship is the envy of much of the world. British citizens enjoy the rights and freedoms of a thriving peaceful democracy, with a growing economy to match. The British government provides extensive rights and entitlements to its citizens."

"Because of its commitment to multiculturalism, the United Kingdom allows dual nationality. This means that you can become a British National without necessarily giving up citizenship in your original country."

"Regardless of how you obtain British citizenship, the entitlements and responsibilities of citizenship are the same. Upon your application being granted, you will have British nationality, also known as British citizenship. You will be entitled to a British passport, have the right to stand and vote in local and national UK elections have rights to travel, reside, and work within other European Economic Area member states and no longer be subject to any type of UK immigration control."

The British Nationality Act preceded our Independence Constitution by 14 years and coincided with their acceptance of dual citizenship. Independent Jamaica also accepted the legal status of dual citizens but neglected to remove the obnoxious constitutional proviso that restricted their human rights. And now, after 48 years of self-determination, we seem unable to find representatives willing and able to make all Jamaicans equal under the law.

Advanced countries

When dual citizenship is embraced by advanced countries such as the United States (US) and those of the European community, it isn't just a matter of benevolence; it also involves self-interest. They are aware of the benefits of assimilating the skills of immigrants, who may be unwilling either for economic or sentimental reasons, to forsake the countries of their origin. That these immigrants continue to support their homeland with remittances and other forms of assistance is a price they are prepared to pay.

In the specific matter of the right of dual citizens to hold elected office, it is well established that the US, Canada and Britain are far more liberal than Jamaica; and these are the countries to which most of our dual citizens are attached. We have no quarrel with these states. We stand to gain more from them than they from us. We have very little to interest their political or economic spies; yet our politicians are keeping a constitutional clause that discriminates against those of our people who take full advantage of opportunities to improve themselves and their relatives in Jamaica.

It is evident that the enlightened electors of this country are not bothered by the implications of Section 40. Their choice of representatives is not influenced by that constitutional instruction; and they seem little impressed by the politicians who use it primarily for their own purposes.

In the three constituencies where the choice of the people was challenged by the voice of the losers, the voters returned the very same candidates, with even greater majorities. Still, we continue this unprofitable exercise; spending millions and wasting enormous amounts of time and energy arguing in and out of court about a law of questionable merit. It certainly takes far less and would be more beneficial to settle the question in Parliament. This is why I agree with Mr Thwaites' demand for action.

Ken Jones is a veteran journalist. Feedback may be sent to columns@gleanerjm.com