Besides wanton killings nationwide, the Jamaican public is consumed with the exorbitant salary increases announced by the Finance Minister Dr Nigel Clarke for the political directorate. On the heels of the coronation for the new king, compounded by the illusions of 61 years of Independence to be celebrated on August 6, they are likewise restless and highly opinionated about Jamaica transitioning to a republic.

While the country’s political prestige has been under inspection for some time, Barbados’s arrival at the finish line on November 30, 2021 has underlined a void that for many of the country’s nationalists, by comparison, leaves the island lagging behind a smaller and less popular sister state. As the populace cries for a separation from the monarchy, th Government has sought to facilitate the process with the construction of the Marlene Malahoo Forte-led Ministry of Legal and Constitutional Affairs. Nonetheless, not only is Team Forte confronted with a arduous task of tabling Bills and engaging in public consultation in an expeditious fashion, its short-sightedness includes a refusal to address some key components of constitutional reform, thus lending prolonged legitimacy to the existing state of affairs.

Why not full acceptance of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) as the country’s final judicial resort if the intent is to advance a disconnect from the crown? Such an avoidance, without concrete philosophical objection, is a flagrant contradiction when considering the fact that Jamaica functions as the interpreter of the treaty governing the CCJ, and simultaneously courts the Privy Council.

According to the former chief justice of Trinidad and Tobago Isaac Hyatali: “It is a compromise of sovereignty to leave decisions to a court which is a part of the former colonial hierarchy, a court in the appointment of whose members we have no say.”

Another point of illumination shares the fact that this body bears deficiencies in comprehension of Caribbean dynamics and culture, and consequently is less prepared to render justice with regional cases. Cost and accessibility favour the CCJ as well. The success of the Shanique Myrie case is testament to a trial that would unfortunately fall shy of an appeal to the Privy Council due to the financial expenses required of the accused. In essence, the rewards are insurmountable as they supersede the shallow claims advocated by the cynics.

The merits of the CCJ v the Privy Council (as defined by opposing sides) are:

• expertise – more steeped in regional affairs

• performance — unbiased verdicts

• cost – more accessible to clients

• cost — more affordable to the islands

• mobility — it is an itinerant legal entity

• experience — better trained judges

With daunting confirmation that Jamaican politicians are far too often on record accused of corruption in varied polls an obligatory reversal of abuse could be activated by attention to yet another flaw that stymies transparency and efficiency.

The separation of the executive and legislative branches supports a regime of checks and balances, thus reducing conflict of interest and gross violations of nepotism, and therefore should not be disregarded. Of equal weight are devotion to qualifications and management skills aligned with distinct portfolios and the inability of any politician to function effectively in two full-time assignments, be it jointly as a Cabinet member and Member of Parliament, or as a minister and a senator. A reset, while initially more costly due to the compensation for additional staff, could be dwarfed by balanced representation, hence a strong degree of trust in the system.

In a challenge to circumvent dismal voter turnout such as the 37.85 per cent experienced in the September 2020 General Election — that in all fairness was partly sparked by the novel coronavirus pandemic — the Government, if genuinely serving on behalf of its citizens, must contemplate separate ballots for the office of prime minister and Members of Parliament. Voters could consider this process that enables more alternatives more democratic and accommodating. Without deliberation, a disgruntled electorate will dwindle even farther, thus granting allowance to question the winning party’s mandate to lead.

Term limits and a set election date merit recognition on the roster as these entries could also bolster voter participation. Whereas the argument against the former points to credible politicians who deserve re-election based on enactment, most practitioners, according to public perception, are not noteworthy of lengthy careers due to inactiveness, kickbacks, and favouritism enhanced by constituencies, some garrison communities oftentimes controlled by a particular party.

Terms limits foster new ideas from incoming elected officials, restrict the influence of political manoeuvring, and build investors’ confidence.

Conversely, in many instances lopsided results can be expected by election dates that are manipulated by a prime minister for his own gain. Such is true of the 1983 election that was abruptly orchestrated by the then prime minister, whose desperation would not allow him to entertain an updated voters’ list — an appeal he would later endorse prior to his four subsequent losses. Thus a date designated for the referendum should allow the outcome to be defined by execution, or the lack thereof, and not political manoeuvring. With this modification in place the current prime minister could have prevented postponing the local elections beyond February 2022 under the guise of financial limitations. In fact, with technology as an advantage, consideration should be given to conducting both elections on the same day. The process would be cost-effective and less time consuming.

The Government should revisit how it approaches the establishment and abolishment of ministries as well. Such activities warrant extensive examination by appropriate parties within and outside of the ruling party to determine validity and longevity of these governmental organs. In other words, the Cabinet should not be altered in size up or down by the stroke of a pen by the prime minister without in-depth consultation, as ministries, for the most part, should be permanent fixtures.

The system at present does not embolden political discourse that could lead to dissent, much less new paradigms towards democratic leadership. Despite reflections that since 1962 to present have demonstrated inconsistency in voting patterns (see table), the electorate is met with more of the same by clones of the Westminster model that seem beholden to self-aggrandisement that it so aptly offers. How long can this descending spiral be accepted without rectification?

In the non-appearance of the aforesaid commendations Jamaica screams for change; however, becoming a republic the likes of Caribbean sisters Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago is not an exhibit for local adulation. History has taught us superficial attractions lack substantial value; therefore, our intentions should be driven by a commitment to sacrifice ourselves, if necessary, for the greater good of the whole, as deviations will only yield a diluted version of the republic we so crave.

To overcome the preconceived notions of reality, Jamaica requires a path to unpretentious liberation that can only materialise through social and economic conversion for which she takes sole responsibility.

Leroy A Binns, PhD, is an adjunct senior lecturer in the Department of Government, at The University of the West Indies, Mona (Western Jamaica Campus)