In the US and several other countries turkeys are commonly eaten at Christmas. Yuletide is, therefore, an unwelcome time for turkeys because it means the approach of likely and/or certain death.

One of my readers sent me this question last Sunday: “Why is Mark Golding blocking Jamaica becoming a republic?”

I responded with the idiom “Turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.” And I also explained it within the political context of Mark Golding’s U-turn on the phased approach to constitutional reform.

I think it is important to share an extension of my reasoning of this self-interest discussion with this reader here. I believe it can/will benefit others who may have similar questions.

Recall Golding said, among other things, in our Parliament: “The time has come for Jamaica now to cut the link with the English Monarchy and become a republic within the Commonwealth.

“Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the two sides have been at one with this, for many years, arising out of the constitutional reform process of the 90s and first decade of this millennium, this century. But, what is important is to deal with it.

“It cannot be right for this country with its history of struggle against oppression, [neither] can it be consistent with our national self-image and pride, for Jamaicans to continue to pay allegiance to such an important symbol that does not and cannot, by definition, reflect and have meaning to the vast majority of our people.

“Madam Speaker, this is a fundamental matter of national identity and self-belief. It really has nothing to do with the respect that is due to the reigning monarch in England, who is indeed respected and held in high esteem across the world.

“The important process of repatriating our sovereignty which began in 1962 has stalled and there is important unfinished business. The time has come for Jamaica to become a republic within the Commonwealth with a Jamaican head of State and for us to swear allegiance to the constitution and people of Jamaica.

“Madam Speaker, we also believe strongly in the importance of providing greater access to the highest level of justice for the Jamaican people, by moving from Her Majesty’s Privy Council to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ), as our final court of appeal. However, the consciousness of the other side is not there yet.

“So, let us begin with the things that we can agree and move forward.”

What has shifted Golding’s trajectory of support for this phased approach to constitutional reform between March 2021 and May 2024?

To me, the answer is straightforward. It is simply a matter of the protection of self-interest. Until last month the country did not know that Golding was still a British citizen. Since that serendipitous revelation there have been several related and vital insights. Golding says, for example, that he will reflect and meditate on the matter of his dual citizenship. He has subsequently said that if the Jamaican people want him to renounce his British citizenship, he will. I believe Golding is playing for time and hedging his bets. This is a great harbinger.

When the reins of leadership in the People’s National Party (PNP) changed from Dr Peter Phillips to Golding, soon after the pummelling of the PNP by the Andrew Holness-led Jamaica Leader Party (JLP) in the September 3, 2020 General Election, the PNP marketed its new leader as “new and different”. It was a political chameleon strategy.

Recall Golding spoke glowingly about working with the Holness Administration and other stakeholders to enhance collaboration designed to facilitate the advancement of Jamaica. Well-thinking Jamaicans now know that Golding’s mouthing about a new era of collaboration was a blip or worse a kind of political bait and switch.

I believe the devastating defeat inflicted on the PNP by the JLP in our 18th general election caused 89 Old Hope Road to adopt a temporarily humbling persona. I believe this explains the utterance of these words: “So, let us begin with the things that we can agree and move forward.”

The country now knows that there was very little, if any, real commitment to collaboration.

There are other reasons for Golding’s political chameleon shift on the matter of a phased approach to constitutional reform, I believe.

Scientific polls, albeit that they are snapshots in time, have found in recent years that a majority of Jamaicans support becoming a republic.

Consider these: “More than half of respondents in the latest Bill Johnson poll say Jamaica should not continue to have The Queen as head of State.

“The poll, commissioned by the Jamaica Observer, was conducted just about a month before we celebrated our 58th anniversary of Independence (August 6) and about two months from the general election.

“The poll was conducted on July 9 to 12, 2020 and used a sample size of 1,200 voting-age Jamaicans.

“Johnson reported that when his team asked people to say whether The Queen should continue to be Jamaica’s head of State or not, 55 per cent of respondents said no, 30 per cent said yes, while 15 per cent said they don’t know. The results reiterate a widely popular view often echoed by politicians but which has so far plodded through the legislature.

“In fact, the closest the issue has come to discussion in Parliament was in 2016 when the newly elected Andrew Holness-led Government included a proposal to make Jamaica a republic in its 2016-17 legislative agenda.” (
Jamaica Observer, August 8, 2020)

Consider this too: On August 8, 2022 The Gleaner reported, among other things: “Just over half of Jamaicans, or 56 per cent, want the country to remove the Queen as head of State, an RJRGleaner Don Anderson poll has found.”

Recall that in 2022 an announcement that Jamaica had begun the process that could remove the Queen as head of State by 2025 was greeted with a chorus of approval nationally. Public sentiment — the nucleus of political decision-making — was solidly on the side of the governing Holness Administration, particularly regarding the matter of Jamaica becoming a republic. Golding, understandably, did not want to paddle against this massive tidal flow.

The Holness Administration would get huge political mileage from Jamaica becoming a republic. Golding fears this. It is not rocket science.

There is also a firm historical basis for my reasoning.

It was Alexander Bustamante (subsequently knighted) who took Jamaica into Independence. He became the first prime minister of independent Jamaica. It was Bustamante who unfurled the Jamaican flag at the United Nations headquarters in New York on September 21, 1962.

No degree in politics is needed to figure that the PNP does not want the JLP to have the distinction of being the party at bat when we become a republic. This mortal political fear also explains the PNP’s reluctance to participate in a referendum on other key constitutional reform issues, I believe.

The PNP’s fear goes back to the West Indies Federation vote on September 19, 1961. Recall there was huge disagreement between leader of the JLP Alexander Bustamante and PNP President Norman Manley as to whether Jamaica rightly belonged in the Federation. A referendum was held to decide the matter.

According to the Electoral Commission of Jamaica (ECJ) records, 217,321 Jamaicans voted yes, and 256,216 said no. The PNP has yet to recover, it seems.

I believe the totality of these fears also accounted for Golding’s initial refusal to name members to sit on the Constitutional Reform Committee. The PNP says it was a matter of principle rooted in the need to advance “full decolonisation”. I believe political expediency and not genuine principle was the more plausible explanation.

The Gleaner, January 17, 2023 noted, among other things: “Prime Minister Andrew Holness has given instructions to Marlene Malahoo Forte, minister of legal and constitutional affairs, to proceed with ‘speed’ towards transforming Jamaica into a republic.”

As I see it, Golding, who the country now knows has another reason for stalling the process of phased constitutional reform, cannot be allowed to thwart Jamaica’s advance.

Not the same

‘PNP vs JLP: Very different’ was the title of my piece here seven Sundays ago. I noted several major differences between our two major political parties, including the fact that the leaders — Andrew Holness and Mark Golding — have rather dissimilar political values.

I also stated that the JLP was an economically, socially and ideologically conscientious conservative party that subscribes to the credo, ‘By the sweat of your brow you shall eat bread’ (Genesis 3:19), while the PNP was a socialist organisation situated in an ideology which originated in Marxist State doctrinaire, be it Christian or Libertarian socialism or Fabianism, etc.

I have had good feedback to the mentioned article and, therefore, I am delving into some additional differences between the JLP and the PNP.

In a functional democracy, the most important currency is accurate information. The fact is many Jamaicans have come to believe that the parties are the same. Where people lack correct information, they make choices, bad choices, which are often rooted in fake news and myths. Those of us who have the knowledge have a duty, then, to help tame the demons of misinformation and disinformation.

Here are some additional major differences between the JLP and the PNP:

The JLP prides itself on being the party of the nation; the JLP stands up first and foremost for Jamaica on the global stage. This foundational trait/instinct, among others, I believe, gives important insight into Bustamante’s discomfort with the West Indies Federation. Being the party of the nation, the JLP is married to the representation of all, not just a particular political class.

By contrast, the PNP, a socialist organisation, is a party of the State. Socialism is predicated on the means of production, distribution, and exchange being owned and regulated by the State. Socialists treat politics as a quasi-religion. They believe in a sort of global political Utopia. I think this preoccupation was part of Norman Manley’s instinct for wanting to include Jamaica in the West Indies Federation.

Class struggle is a major pillar of the PNP’s dictum. I believe that explains why, for example, the PNP espouses ad nauseam undying love for the poor on the political soapbox. The PNP, as I see, also subscribes to a kind of political Calvinism (the doctrines of predestination and divine election in salvation). “Jamaica is PNP country,” does that sound familiar. The PNP has a view that it is the party of natural choice for Jamaica.

Recall this: “We believe that it is best for the PNP to form the Government; therefore, anything that will lead or cause us to be in power is best for the PNP and best for the country.” It was enunciated on radio in the 90s by the PNP’s now Chairman Emeritus Robert “Bobby” Pickersgill.

A belief by the JLP that prudent and practical actions are much more important compared to a mountain of ideology, also separates it from the PNP. The JLP believes you have to produce before you can spend and/ or redistribute. The PNP subscribes to ‘run wid it’. This is deadly. The precipitous economic and social decisions of the 70 and 90s provide irrefutable proof.

More recently, recall what former Finance and Planning Minister Dr Omar Davies said: “Speaking at a PNP North West St Andrew constituency conference on Sunday, Dr Davies said the Government made public spending decisions during the election campaign knowing they were financially unsound.” (
The Gleaner, February 14, 2003)

The JLP has earned the title of better manager of the economy. The PNP has come to be associated with spend today and tomorrow will take care of itself. The inevitable and terrible consequence of this folly include crippling taxation, suicidal borrowing, and biting austerity, resulting in debilitating inflation, unemployment, and a host of other problems that enfeeble especially the poor.

Garfield Higgins is an educator, journalist and a senior advisor to the minister of education and youth. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or higgins160@yahoo.com