The Constitutional Reform Committee has had its first meeting and things seem to have got off to a fair start.

For me, the concern of a superfluity of lawyers on the committee has not been lifted. Adding a non-lawyer from the faith community may assuage or appease that community but does not answer the concern of too many lawyers being on the committee. You do not need a big and unwieldy committee. If anything, the committee should be replacing, not subtracting or adding, even though one can understand the difficulty of removing anyone that has already been named. And who do you target for removal without causing an earthquake of criticisms?

I listened to a conversation between the Minister of Legal and Constitutional Affairs Marlene Malahoo Forte, the venerable Hugh Small, and another member of the committee on Nationwide News Network on the veracity of having so many lawyers on the committee. I was not impressed by their defence. The word “technicality” figured prominently. The argument was that lawyers, by training and I suppose by natural disposition, have the ability to distil technical matters, especially of a legal nature, and are best suited to be seated on such an august body. Ostensibly, when it comes to formulating the language that should define the committee’s deliberations, they would be in a better position to do so.

But as I cautioned in my fist piece on the subject, the technicality of which the panel spoke might precisely be the problem that hamstrings the committee. For quite apart from the legalese that might proceed from this, there is a far greater question of the cultural imperatives that underline such an important task as the reform of a country’s constitution. Such imperatives go far beyond technical or legal expertise. If I am correct in this analysis, the question is whether lawyers in and of themselves possess the requisite understanding or depth of knowledge of those cultural imperatives or of a country’s aspirations to freely govern themselves without being shackled by the very law that purports to set them free.

These considerations cannot be ignored given the present constitutional arrangement we have. The Westminster model that was bequeathed to us by the 1962 constitutional arrangement cannot be said to be the best arrangement for good governance that we have had. For one, it concentrates too much power in the hands of the prime minister. Politicians, who are not themselves subject to term limits or any easy process of removal if they should run afoul of the people’s expectations, are at the centre of this arrangement, not the people.

It has been a largely dysfunctional arrangement that has pitted Jamaicans against each other in a constant tribal battle for supremacy, so well acknowledged by the veritable former Prime Minister PJ Patterson in one of his most enlightened statements of fact. Today, political parties are supreme without the necessary checks and balances that should govern their behaviour. To what extent will our lawyers on the committee be seized with the exigencies of these concerns? To what extent will the justiciable rights of the Jamaican people be left to the possible tyranny of a parliamentary majority of a political tribe or, as a leading newspaper dubs them, the gangs of Gordon House? Will the many lawyers on the committee be bold enough to make the people of Jamaica and not the political parties that purport to represent their interests in the Parliament the real centre of concern of the reform process? With these questions I close my case here.

There is another matter of importance that is being discussed in the public square regarding the composition of the committee. This concerns the presence of Professor Richard Albert, a Canadian, on the committee. There are some church groups that are vehemently opposed to him being there because, for one, he is not a Jamaican and, two, he has expressed great sympathy for the LGBTQ community and is pro-abortionist.

There are a number of things to unpack here. First, we need to understand what we are talking about when we speak of “the Church”. The media has a tendency to refer to disparate church groups as “the Church” without realising that the definite article does not encompass the wider church community scattered throughout the nation. One or two denominations or church groups do not represent that wide representation that is often suggested. One can be sure that many of the mainline churches that would be represented under “the” do not share the views or tactics of the few that are very vocal and demonstrate to make their views known.

Second, the opposition to Professor Albert is puerile, pedantic, and superficial at best. Minister Malahoo Forte has tried to sum up the professor’s Jamaican connections, but quite apart from that, he comes to the process, in the words of those who know him best, as an intellectual of the highest order, a professional, and one with the requisite experience and expertise in the area of constitutional reform. He may very well be a useful counterforce to the legal drudgery that may come from the lawyerly committee. I am in sympathy with the disappointment and embarrassment of Minister Malahoo Forte at the pedantic if not hypocritical approach taken by segments of the Church in opposition to his appointment. They use his non-Jamaican status as their springboard, but their real spiel is buried in their opposition to his sentiments regarding abortion and the LGBTQ community.

There are some Christians who seem to believe that their Christianity gives them the moral right to impose their own views on others and so direct their lives accordingly. The USA is presently going through the paroxysm of the overturn of abortion by the Supreme Court and the pain that such action has occasioned for many. The conservative majority wing of the Supreme Court has stood with the Republicans in striking down the law, an action largely supported by the evangelical wing of US Christianity and the Roman Catholic Church.

There is nothing wrong with church groups advocating and protesting for their positions to be made known. It is their right to do so. But they could learn a few lessons from the temperance, tolerance, and human compassion exhibited by the one they seek to follow when he briefly moved among people in Palestine. He never forced anyone to follow his teaching, but said and taught what was on his heart, leaving those who heard it to come to their own conclusions and decisions. He did not bash anyone over the head with a religious or moral plank, even though he did not condone sinful behaviour as was occasioned in the story of the woman taken in adultery.

Religious autocracies never work. Theocratic views upend the normal flow of democratic narratives which should inform opinion.

Dr Raulston Nembhard is a priest, social commentator, and author of the books Finding Peace in the Midst of Life’s Storms; The Self-esteem Guide to a Better Life; and Beyond Petulance: Republican Politics and the Future of America. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or stead6655@aol.com.