Dear Editor,

The founding fathers envisaged the Senate as a place for people who could bring independent thought and a fresh perspective to the national debate, unfettered by partisan loyalty.

Norman Manley conceived of it as a body that would provide “a time for reflection” to allow tempers to cool, passions to subside and let us listen to, in Abe Lincoln’s words, “the better angels of our nature.”

To appoint senators under threat of dismissal would make the body redundant and defeat the spirit of the constitution. Edward Seaga, one of its framers, argues that the dismissive power is part of the constitutional safeguard against an over-mighty government being able to change the deeply entrenched clauses of the constitution. What he is saying is that one should be allowed to subvert the constitution to prevent being subverted in future; a curious argument.

We should all know that there was a time in our history when not even that would have saved us. Michael Manley had won a massive victory in 1976, and began to put in the infrastructure for a socialist, one-party state; the community councils, the home guards and the brigadistas. These organisations were created ostensibly for noble purposes, and then at the right time converted to ignoble ones. The brigadistas in 1980 gave us a chilling example of what they were capable of in the Gold Street Massacre of 1980. What saved us was not so much the eight JLP senators, but two men and the institutions they led; Sir Florizel Glasspole and Major-General Robert Neish.

Sir Florizel became a beacon for Jamaicans without political affiliation who wanted to preserve our unity and democracy. In 1980, when there were rumours of coups, Neish gave us all a timely reminder that should be written in all our hearts and engraved on the doors of Gordon House: “The army will defend the constitution.” So the protection of the constitution is no reason for Andrew Holness to arrogate to himself a power to enslave the senators.

Orville Brown

Bronx, USA

storyline6000@gmail.com