LAST week in response to my article, John Christian wrote that the PNP is very afraid of any referendum. I agree with him totally but I thought that was a given. What he did not answer is my contention that, in the 1961 referendum campaign, the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) did not address the issue of the referendum as my research suggests.

In other words, the 1961 referendum was a total farce. This was not the intention of Norman Manley, but his chief rival Sir Alexander Bustamante turned it into a joke. And if the past is anything to go by, I contend that the Jamaica Labour Party’s desire for a referendum over the issue of that Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is just an attempt to whip up the crowds, as done in the 1961 referendum, to gain State power in the following general election.

There are many parallels that can be drawn between the 1961 referendum campaign and the current observance of Lent as we meditate on our own sins in preparation for the Good Friday commemoration of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. On the Sunday before His death, the crowd welcomed Jesus Christ into Jerusalem as they threw palms at his feet. By the Friday the same crowds were shouting, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”

The Pharisees and Scribes felt that Jesus Christ was threatening their power, so they conspired to bring about His demise. The Bible states that the Pharisees and Scribes whipped up the crowds against Jesus when He appeared before Pontius Pilate.

Outside of the relatively small band of the followers of Jesus Christ, the crowds were interested only in the miracles and the miraculous healing and feeding just as the average voter did not care one way or the other about Federation in 1961, or care today about the CCJ. Many Jamaicans are law-abiding citizens who believe, perhaps mistakenly, that they will never face a high court.

When Norman Manley romped home in the second victory of the People’s National Party (PNP) at the level of the House of Representatives in July 1959, very few believed that by April 1962 he would have been out of power. Some argue that Norman Manley fell into his own trap by calling a referendum in 1961. He experienced ‘Palm Sunday’ in 1959 and ‘Good Friday’ in 1962 by way of the 1961 referendum to decide whether to stay or secede from the West Indies Federation.

The Jamaica Labour Party in the 1961 referendum campaign spoke on irrelevant issues. In their street meetings, JLP spokesmen said that the Norman Manley-led PNP Government of that time had wasted money by building a National Stadium, by building the Ministry of Education, and by dumping up the swamps in Negril to expand the tourist industry.

JLP spokesmen further denounced the partially free education that existed for Common Entrance scholarship holders in high schools. “Saltfish is better than education” was said in the 1959 election campaign, repeated in the 1961 referendum campaign, and repeated in 1962 when the JLP won power. They also said that black people would not be able to go inside the Sheraton Hotel (later Wyndham), then under construction.

There were responses last week by people who are either paid political hacks or lack comprehension skills. Which category does John Christian fall in? Sometimes his comments suggest that he did not read properly before commenting.

So starting with Edward Seaga who never returned to power after 1989 and, like any politician would, was ‘trying a thing’ to get re-elected and devised a plan to insist on a referendum for the CCJ. Edward Seaga was 31 years old in 1961 and was a member of the Legislative Council, the forerunner of the Senate. He was one of the campaign speakers on the JLP’s anti-federation platform. So he intimately understands how and why the 1961 referendum worked for the JLP. I suspect he advised Holness to insist on a referendum.

I believe that the real reason Sir Alexander Bustamante was against federation was that it was impossible for him to be the federal prime minister. While the JLP/DLP coalition did get a majority of seats in the federation in Jamaica the JLP/DLP failed to gain a majority in the other territories islands.

Robert Lightbourne resigned from the federal house in 1959 to contest the Western St Thomas seat in Jamaica’s House of Representatives. He won his seat for the JLP, but the PNP won the election. There was a by-election for the federal seat vacated by Lightbourne. The JLP did not have sufficient funds to contest the by-election so they did not field a candidate. The reason they gave was that they were against Federation. Norman Manley, as premier, swallowed the bait and called a referendum.

The Senate seat saga where the constitutional court determined that two resignations were invalid was caused by the Andrew Holness desire to block the passage of the CCJ bill to demand a referendum. What guarantees do we have that in a referendum on the CCJ irrelevant issues, as in 1961, will not confuse the electorate?

I hereby issue a challenge to everyone who wants a referendum on the CCJ, even if they doubt the motives of politicians who insist on it: Collectively insist that the referendum campaign law changes so that first, no member of parliament or senator can campaign for or against the CCJ.

Second, that the media houses stick to the rules of the CCJ referendum campaign and not publish or allow anyone to broadcast anything but the pros and cons of the CCJ in a debate that should be open to the media. Third, that no political advertisements should be published or broadcasted from any media house for three weeks before the referendum. This is the only sort of referendum that I would personally agree with.

And these are also the rules that I wish for when we have a referendum to determine whether we should have republican status. What would be very interesting to see is, if the electorate insisted on specific laws for a clean and focused referendum, would the JLP still want a referendum on the CCJ?

ekrubm765@yahoo.com