Dear Editor,

At several intervals during his political life Prime Minister Andrew Holness has been described as a dictator based on certain decisions taken and actions executed.

In 2021 former People’s National Party (PNP) Member of Parliament and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives Lloyd B Smith questioned whether Holness should become a benevolent dictator. Benevolent dictatorship refers to a Government in which an authoritarian leader exercises absolute political power over the State but is perceived to do so with regard for the benefit of the citizenry.

During the novel coronavirus pandemic, many tooted the idea of Holness being a dictator, especially when Shaquille Higgins was arrested and forced to apologise to the prime minister for nasty comments he made due to restrictions that the Government had imposed on the country. An article written by Our Today’s Gavin Riley on July 21, 2021 was titled ‘Dictatorship vibes: Another Jamaican man dragged from his home to apologise to Andrew Holness’. Riley’s lead said, “If it happens once, one could dismiss it as an understandable overreaction. If it happens twice, then it’s a habit. Three times, you have a clear pattern developing…” In June 2020, The Gleaner published a news item titled ‘Holness: I’m no dictator – PM deflects accusation as Bunting goes on attack’. This was in relation to ongoing states of emergency as a primary crime-fighting mechanism.

Certainly, Dr Holness, the prime minister recently received an honorary doctorate from Delaware State University, has been harshly criticised for dictatorial tendencies. However, could Opposition Leader Mark Golding be weighed in the scale and found equally wanting?

Golding has repeatedly micromanaged and undermined the work of many of his shadow ministers and has openly contradicted their positions on several issues. It has happened with Dr Morais Guy, Julian Robinson, and most recently with the three members he assigned to the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC).

After much work done by the CRC over the past months, the members — which included representatives from the two main political parties and civil society as well as constitutional lawyers — seemed to have been satisfied with the drafted recommendations to be submitted to Cabinet. Each person’s signature was needed; however, Golding, at the ninth hour, decided that no conclusive decision could be made by his representatives, even though they admitted that they had no issues with the document. It was also revealed that Golding was invited to CRC meetings, at which he did not appear. Clearly, it is either his way or no way at all.

Golding raised some points in a document he prepared for the CRC, to which Legal and Constitutional Affairs Minister Marlene Malahoo Forte said a response would be given.

However, what we have continued to notice is Golding’s flip-flopping attitude. In March 2016, Nationwide News Network carried a news article titled ‘Golding Open to Participating in CCJ [Caribbean Court of Justice] Referendum’. According to the article, “Former Justice Minister Mark Golding says he’d participate in a referendum on the Caribbean Court of Justice, CCJ, if as expected, the new JLP Administration holds a referendum to decide whether that body should replace the UK-based Privy Council as the country’s final court of appeal.”

In light of Barbados becoming a republic, Golding said in Parliament on October 16, 2021, “Barbados has recently taken the required steps to repatriate their sovereignty by establishing a Barbadian as their head of State and first president. That was a bipartisan exercise, concluded in a timely manner, from start to finish, through cooperation between the Government and Opposition in Barbados. I wish to commend them for it. We in Jamaica should follow now — right away — and without delay.

“The establishment of a non-executive president as our head of State in replacement of the English monarch was agreed by both major political parties over a decade ago. Surely, Madam Speaker, we can work together to take the required constitutional steps to making this happen in the year coming, which is the nation’s 60th anniversary year. Prime Minister, let us move forward with this now, with a common fixity of purpose. Time come.”

How comes the Opposition leader is now making the process unnecessarily difficult? How comes he is adamant about twinning republicanism with the CCJ? It is really hypocritical of Golding and other PNP-infiltrated civil society groups, lawyers, and individuals to chide the Government for a lack of consultation and public education on constitutional reform yet at the same time they want to force their own agenda on the country.

The people ought to know what options are available in terms of the final court. Let us have a say in the type of president we want to govern the country. They want a republic that makes sense for the future generations, but somehow they want to exclude our voices and votes from the process.

I wish to also remind many of the civil society leaders that Jamaica is bigger than they are. Who exactly do they represent? They often speak as the sole authority on national and social issues, as though we are to accept everything they shove down our throats. But, again, the media continues to give them a space to express so-called neutral views when we know they are politically aligned.

Oneil Madden

maddenoniel@yahoo.com