I have been following the recent discussions going on regarding the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC), whereby it has come to light that the Opposition People’s National Party (PNP) has refused to sign the final recommendations.

The disagreement lies in what the Opposition describes as a “piecemeal” approach to reform, in that the current ruling Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) wishes to separate the issue of republicanism from that of determining the final court.

In the PNP’s view, it is impossible to do one without the other, but the JLP does not see it that way. This has led to great debate over whether it is possible for both to be done at the same time, with no clear settlement on the matter.

My own position is somewhat similar to the Government’s: to have them separated; however, my version would have us getting rid of the Privy Council but retaining the King, which is exactly what Canada, Australia, and New Zealand have all done, so there is plenty of precedent for such a stance.

To further complicate the debate is the matter of a timeline. If the Government had got its way earlier, all of this would have taken place before the monarchy had even changed hands in 2022 from Elizabeth II to Charles III, but fate had other plans. The timeline then shifted to 2025 when we are due to have our next general election, but therein lies another problem, as we would have to hold a referendum, which is unlikely to take place in that time window; therefore, the time would have to go beyond that unless we go the Barbados route.

And what is the Barbados route? This is when the Government unilaterally changes the constitution without asking the people’s permission. No doubt there are some who would love for this to be the case, given the history of referenda in the region? What history is that? Currently, Dominica, Barbados, Guyana, and Trinidad and Tobago have all made the transition from realm to republic, while Barbados, Belize, Dominica, Guyana, and St Lucia have moved from the UK Privy Council to the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). In every one of these cases the transitions have been done without calling a referendum. Conversely, the monarchy referendum in St Vincent (2009) and final court referenda in Antigua (2018) and Grenada (2018) all flopped, with the population voting in favour of the status quo.

How you interpret these events is dependent entirely on your point of view. Do you value democracy more than republicanism? Or do you think republican aspirations should override the democratic will of the people? Because contrary to what we are told, the two are not synonymous, especially when we are so often told that having a president is more democratic than having the King yet in countries like Barbados, Dominica, and Trinidad and Tobago presidents are selected and not elected.

To further emphasise the point, I cannot help but notice an area of democratic deficit that no one wishes to talk about. It stems from the fact that when both Barbados and Trinidad and Tobago became republics, neither country had a viable Opposition. Starting with Trinidad and Tobago, upon achieving Independence in 1962, the People’s National Movement was already the established party in power, with a grip that it continued to maintain for decades, culminating in the 1971 general election in which it won more than 80 per cent of the seats in Parliament. Therefore, by the time it established the republic in 1976, there was no entity in the country that could challenge its decision, given that its main rival, the United National Congress, was not established until 1989, well after Trinidad and Tobago became a republic.

Similarly, in Barbados, Mia Mottley’s Barbados Labour Party, in the 2018 General Election, won 100 per cent of the seats in the Barbados Assembly and three years later transformed Barbados into a republic. The trend here is quite obvious, in both cases the Government had no real Opposition party to hold it accountable, and in both cases there was no popular vote on the matter.

Contrast this with the case of St Vincent in 2009 where there was not only a referendum but the Government had only 55 per cent of seats in Parliament, meaning there was still a viable Opposition. Given this history, it should come as no surprise that in Jamaica, where we pride ourselves on having a strong Opposition as a counterweight to the ruling party, the CRC has ended up with this result. All the talk about how other Caribbean countries have managed to “accomplish” republicanism has never once accounted for the fact that governments were only able to remove the Crown when they had no democratic watchdog to prevent them from messing with the constitution, but that will not be the case in a robust democracy such as ours.

Some would argue that it is not about democracy per se but more about our sovereignty. I, however, would encourage a different approach by dissecting this argument. The common mantra states that only by replacing His Majesty with a president can we be truly sovereign. But is this argument true? First of all, let us explore what sovereignty means. According to Article 1 of the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States, for a State to be sovereign it must possess four conditions:

1) A permanent population

2) A defined, undisputed territory

3) A Government capable of exercising sovereignty and having a monopoly of the legitimate use of force

4) The capacity to enter into relations with the other states and be recognised by them

So my question is: Are there any grounds to suggest that Jamaica is lacking in any of these four areas? Is there any country on Earth that disputes Jamaica’s right to exist as an independent entity in the international community due to the lack of a president? I can think of several countries which have disputed sovereignty issues, such as Palestine, Taiwan, and Kosovo, and yet they are all republics with presidents. Clearly then, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that the King makes us less independent and a president would make us more so. That is the story republicans have told themselves (and the rest of us) to justify their own political leanings.

The CRC has once again hit a roadblock, which means any attempt by the Government to rush through a change in our constitution will not happen, Jamaica is not Barbados and Andrew Holness is not Mia Mottley.

I have no doubt that should the Government change at next election the PNP will try to push through its own version of constitutional reform which will face opposition from the JLP. This means that unless one party gains control of all 63 seats, our sacred founding document will remain intact, a prospect that no doubt fills republicans with dread.

But having seen what took place in our sister islands, it makes me value our democracy even more, and I am proud to say that I prize this far more than I do any republican sentiment.

jaeson.greene@outlook.com