IN the Sunday Gleaner of May 3, 2015, Bruce Golding gave a historical account of how the Jamaica Labour Party came to change its position on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). Golding also wrote that a real issue was raised by the People’s National Party when they stated their concerns that a referendum campaign on the CCJ would not necessarily focus on the issue. In the words of Golding, the PNP was concerned that a referendum would be “more about everything else” rather than the CCJ.

This is a point that I have been writing about for some time. As far as I am concerned, the 1961 referendum on the West Indies Federation was a farce because the campaign focused on local issues rather than the issue of the federation. Golding also mentioned that the PNP was concerned that a referendum was too sensitive an issue to be thrown into the cut-and-thrust of an election campaign. I happen to share a similar sentiment with the PNP on this issue.

Bruce Golding also pointed out that he is concerned that Great Britain might not want Jamaica to continue to have their Privy Council hear appeals from Jamaica. This is another point that I have made along with many others.

A few years ago, the then British High Commissioner was asked his views on Jamaica retaining the British Privy Council as its final appellate court and, if it were true that Britain wanted the arrangement to discontinue. He said he had received no such instructions that Britain intended to discontinue the Privy Council relationship. Some Jamaicans, particularly JLP fanatics, latched on to that as proof that Britain somehow welcomes Jamaican appeals.

But diplomats do not speak out of turn on issues, so in this instance the British High Commissioner was simply being a good diplomat. The loyal Labourites have now read that Bruce Golding is concerned that we might be fighting for something that we will lose anyway.

In a real way, it is like our political independence that we achieved in 1962. In 1776, the United States of America took their political independence from England in a war, because England did not want them to have it. Jamaica, like many nations in the British Commonwealth, was handed its independence on a silver platter because Britain wanted to make the break. How would voting in a referendum to remain a colony change Britain’s position?

But there is even more that we should look at before having any referendum on any issue. Many JLP supporters state that the PNP is better at winning elections, although in their view the JLP is the better party. I share the view that in recent decades the PNP has been better at winning elections. The truth is that, in Jamaica, it is political organisation that wins elections today for a political party.

Further to this, the turnout in general elections seems to be growing less and the PNP, with its larger core base, gets a bigger turnout partly because of that and partly because the PNP is better organised. Given such a scenario, a referendum on the CCJ could be won by the PNP as they are better organised. What would the JLP loyalists say then other than bawl that the PNP won on election strategy rather than on the issues? True, the PNP is not taking any chances with a referendum because of the result last time, but it does not mean that they would lose a referendum today.

Unity down the years

The current enquiry into the Tivoli incursion, having its chief commissioner from Barbados, could prove to be a test run in terms of Jamaica’s perception of the CCJ. I like the idea of bringing in an impartial person from the outer Caribbean who is in no way attached to the local scene and who can therefore give an impartial view.

The fact that Sir David Simmons shares a similar racial heritage to most of our own people is also good because in no way can that fact reinforce the colonial mentality of slave owner and slave, for instance. How Sir David handles the enquiry could either improve or worsen the local perception of the CCJ. In this case, Sir David might have far more in his hands than he might realise.

The truth of the matter is that Jamaicans have never really had much interest in the Eastern Caribbean. Jamaicans have tended to look to North American and Europe. True, in recent times some corporate entities have done good business with our Caribbean neighbours, but that is certainly not sufficient to argue that our relationship has been like a family. That relationship had initially to do with the old ways of international travel by boat. The boats would stop in each territory to or from England and the USA, forging some sort of relationship between Caribbean people.

Second, there is the West Indies Cricket team which gained more traction in the United Kingdom among Caribbean nationals gone there to work after the war. The oppressive conditions in which Caribbean nationals lived in England, and with the West Indies cricketers at that time beating England at its own game, brought about a patriotism of Caribbean peoples in England. In the 1961 referendum campaign, the then 26-year-old P J Patterson would write that there was more support for federation in England where Caribbean peoples lived together.

And third, there was the University of the West Indies. But none of these were strong enough to keep the West Indies Federation together. Federal unions anywhere in the world are difficult to keep together. So the CCJ, although a court and not a nation, will also have a rough time ahead. Last week, for example, the separatist Scottish National Party took control of 56 of the 59 seats allotted to Scotland in the British Parliament.

The only way to bring about a cohesive Caribbean is in Jamaican men and women seeking wives and husbands in the Eastern Caribbean. It is a long-term solution, but at least their children might grow up with an appreciation for both Jamaica and the Eastern Caribbean.

ekrubm765@yahoo.com