Editorial | Marley, Miss Lou and more

The debate has receded since the October hubbub over the categories of honour that should be bestowed on the late Jamaican cultural icons, Bob Marley and Louise Bennett-Coverley, ‘Miss Lou’.

Both are now members of the Order of Merit (OM), which is reserved for people who have “achieved eminent international distinction in the field of science, the arts, literature or any other endeavour” and can be held by no more than 15 living people.

Prime Minister Andrew Holness wants Marley, the globally acclaimed reggae singer, whose songs are still hits more than 40 years after his death, and ‘Miss Lou’, the poet, comedienne and performer, who, from as early of the 1940s, gave legitimacy to Jamaican Creole, to be first inductees in a proposed Order of National Icon.

Mark Golding, the Opposition leader, has campaigned for Marley to be named a national hero, which he said would happen if his People’s National Party forms the government after next year’s general election. He has not said what he would do about Miss Lou.

While this newspaper is not, at this time, convinced of the need for a new category of national honours, we feel that the circumstances invite a new phase of the debate of the management of the existing orders, including of the respect they command, clarity around the criteria for membership in them, as well as greater transparency in the process of induction.

In 2021, Prime Minister Holness promised that such a conversation would take place, after a similar pledge two years earlier by his culture minister, Olivia ‘Babsy’ Grange.

Independent Jamaica formally launched its system of national honours with a 1969 legislation that allowed for a declaration of national heroes (seven were named), as well as for several other categories of awards.

Marley was made OM in 1981, the year he died, and ‘Miss Lou’ joined him in the order in 2001. For several years there has been an on-and-off debate over whether either, or both, should be elevated to national hero. They would be the first since the initial group was named 55 years ago.

‘TRUE NATIONAL HERO’

In the Budget debate in March, Mr Golding argued that it was time that Marley – probably Jamaica’s most famous son, whose music inspired liberation movements around the world – be officially recognised as “a true national hero”. He repeated that call in his National Heroes Day message in October, saying that Marley had “more than any other … made our music an inspirational force of liberation, justice, and equality for all the peoples of the world”.

In his message for the same occasion, Prime Minister Holness pitched the Order of National Icon for Marley and Miss Lou, channelling a proposal of the 2008 review panel, which was endorsed by a parliamentary committee, for the creation of an Order of Jamaican Heritage, which would sit just below National Hero. Notably, Bob Marley and Louise Bennett-Coverley were mentioned as the likely candidates for membership.

In his National Heroes Day remarks, Mr Holness said: “Miss Lou’s work in promoting Jamaican Patois and folk traditions has cemented her as a pioneer of our national identity, while Bob Marley’s music transcended borders, making him an international ambassador of reggae and a symbol of resistance to oppression and a beacon of unity and love.”

The prime minister’s suggestion has elicited claims of a similarity between the proposed new Order of Jamaican Heritage and Order of Merit. Further, some commentators have said that neither Marley nor Miss Lou, on the merit of their contributions, needed more stepping stones to the pantheon of heroes.

While The Gleaner is not without sympathy for that position, what we would insist on – as did the parliamentary panel that reviewed the work of the 2008 committee, as well as that of the Rex Nettleford Committee of a dozen years earlier – is a robust selection process with transparent criteria.

TRANSPARENT

Said the parliamentary committee in its report: “The members of the committee expressed concern about the criteria used to select recipients of honours and awards at both the local and national level. The members are of the view that individuals should not be honoured or awarded based on the discretion of those making the recommendations and therefore propose that the System of National Honours and Awards be transparent and that there be set standards for selecting the awardees.”

To be clear, The Gleaner does not question the merit of the vast majority of people who, each year, receive national honours. But there is potential for their integrity to be tarnished, and their appeal diminished, if a perception grows that the selection process is opaque and lacks accountability. The latter concern is fixable.

An open and accessible report each year by the chancery of orders, could, without revealing names, say how many people were considered for each category of honours and the reasons for the choices made.

We also support the Nettleford recommendation that national awards should be, and seen to be, hard to get.

Said that report: “The committee shares the view that the national awards system would benefit from greater regulatory restriction as to frequency of award.

“The committee view is merely out of concern for the positive impact such a regulatory restriction would have on the attitude of the Jamaican citizen to an award offered by his/her nation.”