Dear Editor,

There has been considerable concern that the five-week deadline for a Bill to be tabled in Parliament, projected by the Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte, is a very hasty leap to a referendum on constitutional reform.

There are certainly reasonable grounds for requesting an expansion of this period; however, several factors should be taken into account but are being ignored. First, and most importantly, there are two items of constitutional reform, with respect to which we should have a sense of urgency. These are that we should reject the present monarchical form of our constitution, whereby we bow to and pay obeisance to King Charles III.

It is not a question of whether the “monarchy might not be relevant to Jamaica” but a conviction that it is inimical to our self-esteem and national consciousness. The second is that after 60 years of statehood we are still being governed by a constitution which is a legal instrument in the form of a schedule to an Order in Council of the British monarch made at Buckingham Palace in England and signed by a stranger to Jamaica. These emblems and manifestations of colonialism have persisted for over 60 years of independent statehood despite the protests and urgings of many of us and several reform endeavours.

It is not tolerable to continue living under this imperialistic format. As Marcus Garvey said, “There is much to live for, and there is much to die for. The man, the race of nation that is not prepared to risk life itself for the possession of an ideal, shall lose that ideal.” I firmly believe the time is long past for us to have removed the royalist shackles from Jamaica’s body politic.

The second important factor to take into account is that both of these important changes require a referendum. Constitutional change, which requires a referendum, is legally a slow process, so that while the minister’s declared time table appears to be very short, in any event, the proposal, when incorporated in a Bill, will have to wait at least six months after the Bill is tabled before it can be passed in the House of Representatives and after that a further two months before it is put to the people in a referendum.

There may also be other important changes on which we can obtain a consensus, such as entrenching the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) in the new constitution, reformulating the constitution so that it is more reader-friendly, and providing for fixed term Parliaments. One proposal which has been voiced from time to time and for which no rational argument has been presented is that we should adopt the presidential form of government. We have no experience in operating such a system. Without going into the details of comparative studies, it is important to warn that there is a long history and widespread experience of the presidential form of government lapsing into dictatorship or into abysmal chaos. In my view, this proposal is unlikely to be supported by the Jamaican Parliament or electorate. Furthermore, history demonstrates that radical changes are hardly ever approved in referenda.

However, if the two basic changes which I regard as imperatives are agreed, other changes which can readily attract a consensus, such as entrenching the ECJ and defining more precisely the life of each Parliament, can be included in the Bill.

We can proceed expeditiously while taking advantage of each step in the process for public education, consultation, and debate.

Dr Lloyd Barnett

Attorney-at-law

dr.lgbarnett@gmail.com