The term ‘best practice’ means that it is the best way to get a desired result. It turns out that one of the best practices for a Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) victory at the polls is to have a referendum on whatever issue. It worked for the JLP in the first and only referendum in Jamaica in 1961 when the electorate voted to secede from the West Indies Federation. I believe it is for this reason the JLP has been insisting on a referendum for the to installation of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as Jamaica court of final appeal from the time Edward Seaga was Opposition leader.

But the petition being taken up to have certain electoral divisions in Portmore — which like a referendum is a democratic exercise — might not work for the JLP. So some JLP practitioners are trying to get an injunction by the courts to restrain them from taking up the petition. What is the real issue here? Is it the CCJ or the desire for a referendum as a JLP political strategy? Is the JLP’s desire for a referendum primarily about upholding democracy?

The turnout of voters was very low in the referendum in 1961, but the result was that the Jamaican people voted for Jamaica to secede from the West Indies Federation. Sir Alexander Bustamante, then leader of the Opposition won a strategic victory as he was against the federation. The then-ruling Norman Manley-led PNP itself was divided on the issue. How many Jamaicans really care one way or another about the CCJ or the British Privy Council? Would the polling turnout in such a referendum be even as high as the 1961 referendum?

At the time of the referendum the main means of political campaigning was street meetings, unlike today when it is television. My research taken from The Gleaner reports of street meetings reveals that the JLP did not mention the Federation much, if at all, and the issues raised by the JLP in the 1961 referendum were totally irrelevant to the Federation issue.

Nevertheless, the JLP won the 1961 referendum. The JLP, led by then Opposition Leader Sir Alexander Bustamante, who was against the Federation, criticised the National Stadium being constructed under the Government headed by Norman Manley as a waste of money. The Ministry of Education (dubbed Glasspole’s Glass-house and Hotel Glasspole — as Florizel Glasspole was then minister of education) was also criticised as a total waste of money and so was the dumping-up of Negril swamps to create one of the main tourist hubs in Jamaica.

These campaign positions were repeated by the JLP in the 1962 election campaign which they won. I believe that Edward Seaga remembers all of this, which is why a referendum on the CCJ is so important to the JLP. And the politically savvy P J Patterson, who was prime minister up to nine years ago, apparently saw through Seaga’s referendum request and said “Fahget it!” I also believe that Seaga would have explained why a referendum would be the “best practice” for the JLP to current Opposition Leader Andrew Holness, who was born 11 years after the 1961 referendum.

If there is a referendum today on the CCJ, would other issues that are totally irrelevant to the CCJ be brought up, such as the Outameni purchase and the cost of the pending commission of enquiry into the security forces’ operation of May 2010 in Tivoli?

When I wrote this before, some argued that I underestimate the intelligence of the electorate, but I do not. In any nation where the people are fed and have roofs over their heads, even if educated, they do not turn out in large percentages to vote unless they want to vote the government out of office, or unless there is compulsory voting as in Australia. It has nothing to do with intelligence, but who underestimates the intelligence of the people — me or those who want a referendum on the CCJ for political reasons.

Was Andrew Holness’s insistence that his appointees to the Senate sign undated letters of resignation a way of attempting to force a referendum from the Government on the CCJ? As you know, the court recently ruled in the case of Arthur Williams and Christopher Tufton that their resignations were invalid.

For the CCJ Bill to be passed it would be a constitutional change that requires two-thirds of both houses of Parliament. The ruling People’s National Party currently has two-thirds of the House of Representatives (42 seats to the JLP’s 21). Is this craving for a referendum the reason Holness is now appealing the decision of the court, even after apologising?

Some who are not in favour of the CCJ argue that the British Privy Council gives more balanced judgements than the CCJ. But isn’t that a grave insult to our Caribbean jurists? Some lawyers who take their client’s cases to the British Privy Council might hold the view that it is a better final appellate court, while others might want that body to remain our final appellate court as any change might result in a loss of income.

We hear that Jamaican appeals to the British Privy Council are a burden on the British taxpayer and that it is full time that we Jamaicans dealt with our appeals. Some years ago someone in the media asked the British High commissioner about it, and he said that he knew of no move to stop Jamaicans from appealing to the British Privy Council. What else did the media expect a diplomat to say? Diplomats are only allowed by their governments to publicly give the answers that their governments want to be given, not to publicly give their own opinions.

Some argue that, regardless of the motives of some people’s call for a referendum, we should still have it. But, if we are to have a referendum on the CCJ, the rules of the game should change in such a manner that nothing else can be discussed in the campaign but the pros and cons of the CCJ. Ideally, we should take the politicians out of the referendum campaigns, but this will not happen because referenda held separate from elections are costly. There has been talk to have referendum issues voted on at the same time as a general election to cut the cost.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com

PULL QUOTE

Was Andrew Holness’s insistence that his appointees to the Senate sign undated letters of resignation a way of attempting to force a referendum from the Government on the CCJ?… Some argue that, regardless of the motives of some people’s call for a referendum, we should still have it