Barbados, through the actions of the Mia Mottley-led Administration, has stirred up two birds’ nests in Jamaica. First, the Bajan self-elevation to republican status has prompted the question: Why is Jamaica still a monarchy? Secondly, the appointment of the entertainer Rihanna to national hero status has generated reflections on Jamaica’s heroic landscape: Should we have some new heroes? And, are the right heroes justifiably in place?

We are, of course, entitled to be a little surprised about the general media-based kerfuffle, prompted by the Mottley developments. Barbados, after all, is not the first Commonwealth Caribbean country to assume republican status. Guyana, Trinidad, and Dominica having already done so years ago, and within Jamaica itself there has been a debate about shedding the monarchical mantle since at least the 1970s. Indeed, if we remember, Trevor Munroe correctly stated that the question of republican status, for us, goes back at least to the dawn of Independence in 1962 ( The Politics of Constitutional Decolonization, 1944-62 (1972), p 151). But the catalyst from Bridgetown has set us alight.

Republican case

Former Prime Minister P J Patterson and Leader of the Opposition Mark Golding are both correct in affirming that Jamaica should move expeditiously towards republican status. The case for Jamaican republicanism is clear. Symbolically, a country’s head of state should emerge from the people, should be representative of the people, and should be a point of unity for the people.

If the head of state is to represent a community and its aspirations then there is virtue in having a direct connection between the head of state and the community she/he represents. This is not over-enthusiastic nationalism; rather, it is simply an assertion of the value of having a connection between the nominal leader of a country and the population served by the nominal leader. It is also an assertion concerning self-respect.

Colonial equation

A second line of argumentation in support of republican status concerns the historical place of the British monarch in our colonial equation. In his speech at the Bridgetown transition, Prince Charles noted that Barbados had overcome the shameful trauma of slavery to become a vibrant nation. In so doing, he implicitly recalled the link between British colonialism and slavery. This context, by itself, should give us reason to place some distance between the independent State of Jamaica and the British Crown.

Moreover, even if we believe that colonialism had some redeeming features, our national pride and sense of Jamaican identity should prompt us to say, “Time come,” as was done by former Prime Minister Portia Simpson Miller at her installation as head of Government in 2012. Independence implies a desire on our part to forge our destiny by our own efforts. The retention of the monarchy — based in London, over 4,000 miles away — seems incongruous so many years after Independence.

Bread alone?

In some of the media discussions concerning republican status for Jamaica the point has been made that a change in the location of our head of state will not necessarily bring forth any tangible benefits for this country. This could well be true in the short run.

We should note, however, that the building of a national identity, which may accrue to the development of individuals in society, is a long-term project that requires mutual respect and cooperation among all Jamaicans. If our educational system is promoting the view that “finding the next dollar” is the only criterion for development, we are doing a disservice to the nation of Jamaica. Is it not ordained that we should not live by bread alone?

Bells and fists

Some people have also argued that the move to republicanism should not be a priority issue, for Jamaica has many pressing problems requiring immediate attention. This is not a convincing argument. We can walk and chew gum. Activities to change our head of state do not deter us in national attempts to solve enduring problems — many of which, ironically, can be traced firmly to colonialism.

Similarly, there is no particular force in suggestions that the change to republican status is merely symbolic. Symbolism has prompted us to name national heroes. Symbolism has been a source of inspiration and point of unity for the rich and poor alike. Symbolism has played a prominent role in our Christmas activities. Symbolism is central to many religious practices. Symbolism prompted us to retain The Queen in 1962. And symbolism has been an enduring feature of our Jamaican heritage. Bell ringers at election time well remember this, as do those who clench their fists with power.

Referendum

The Constitution of Jamaica indicates that there shall be no change in the head of state without a referendum on the topic. This has prompted the view that both political parties should consider giving their public support for the change to republican status. This recommendation has much in its favour. Given the divided and partisan nature of our political decision-making, if either party opposes the move from the monarchy there will be no change in the location of the country’s sovereignty. This would leave us in reverse gear as a people.

On the other hand, I share the discomfort of those who may be sceptical about our two main political parties deciding on a referendum approach from a position that appears to be located above the rest of society. Arguably, the better approach would be for the parties to leave the matter of the referendum entirely to the will of the people. In this way, even party members would be free to vote according to their personal perspectives, and not necessarily in keeping with the party line declared ex cathedra.

Privy Council

The republican question also prompts at least quick thoughts about judicial authority in the Caribbean. Jamaica retains the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council as our final appellate court, with the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) maintaining that the question of abolishing appeals to London should be put to the people in a referendum, even though this does not seem to be required by the strict letter of the constitution.

For the present purposes it should be noted that if Jamaica were to become a republic this change would not automatically mean that appeals to the Privy Council would end. Trinidad and Tobago, though a Republic since 1976, continues to have appeals to Her Majesty in Council, an approach which has been accepted by the Privy Council in its case law.

National heroes

The second major set of issues prompted by the recent Bridgetown transition concerns the selection of national heroes. From time to time the criticism is made that Jamaica has been very conservative in its approach to extending the list of national heroes for the country. More specifically, some analysts are keen to recommend additional personalities for our pantheon of heroes. Proposed new national heroes include Bob Marley, Louise Bennett-Coverley, Michael Manley, Edward Seaga, and Usain Bolt, among others.

In each case critics may be heard offering support or raising reservations about the selections. With respect to Bob Marley, there can be no doubt about his international impact, while Miss Lou’s championing of the Jamaican dialect has changed the self-perception and the national identity of many Jamaicans. For Manley and Seaga, opinion tends, not surprisingly, to follow partisan lines. One can imagine discussions about a political “package deal” concerning these two leaders, but this possible deal may best await the long-term assessment of history.

In sports, Usain Bolt has certainly stirred our national pride and, together with other athletes, has inspired whole generations of Jamaicans across the world. But, if Bolt, what about Herb McKenley and Arthur Wint as pioneers? And what about Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce, Elaine Thompson-Herah, Veronica Campbell Brown, Merlene Ottey, Don Quarrie, and others in our athletics Hall of Fame? Why, too, has George “Atlas” Headley not be mentioned in dispatches?

It may be that this matter of new national heroes is being considered behind the scenes. As a part of any process for selecting national heroes in the future there may need to be a review of the criteria for selection, along with public discussion on those criteria, before any additional steps are taken.

Stephen Vasciannie is professor of international law at The University of the West Indies, Mona.