The Gleaner weighs in

C. Roy Reynolds

WE HAVE seen that the new Constitution of 1944 was not exactly something graciously bestowed by the British Governor and gratefully received by the people of Jamaica. Instead criticism and charges flowed from various sources throughout much of 1944.

Inevitably The Gleaner would have its say as well, which it did in a number of editorials. On April 18, under the title "Constitution" it raised two principal questions. The first of these, the paper said, involved a proposed conference between the elected members of the Legislative Council, the People's National Party and the Federation of Citizens Associations.

This, it felt, was too restrictive as the issue to be considered was the business of the entire population:

"There is no disputing the fact that the nature of the Constitution is by no means the limited responsibility and concern for the elected members or even of the three groups who will confer. In the majority, the men who are to operate the Constitution are not yet members and the only way the people who are to operate the Constitution can make sure that its provisions are suitable, is for the whole public to criticise and discuss the draft constitution now, before it is given the force of an Order in Council".

"The question of the Executive Members is not merely a technical one: it is fundamental in a very practical sense. For the test of the constitution as a workable scheme will rest on the relationship which exists between the Governor as the chief executive, with his Executive Council on the one hand the people's representatives in the all-elected House of Representatives."

The other point covered in the editorial was about the Speaker of the House of Representatives. It observed that it had not yet been decided whether or not he should be selected from elected members to the House. Said The Gleaner on this point:

"In our view, the Speaker should without any question whatsoever, be a person duly elected as a member of the House. For after all, wider powers in a representative constitution should not be given to a man in whom the electorate may have no confidence than to others whose membership is terminable by the electorate!"

In yet another editorial, on June 29, 1944, The Gleaner drew attention to what appeared to be a constitutional anomaly.

Titled "The Constitution", it said its analysis of the document indicated that it proceeded from the Governor downwards while there was strong perception that it should have been from the people upwards.

On the other hand, it said, it might be understandable since "the degree of representation (still not responsibility) to be granted is so large as to balance more closely the reality of power which will still be retained in the hands of the British Government."

Then it turned its attention to something which appeared to have been missed by most commentators. How secure was the very concept of adult suffrage, the cornerstone of the new status:

"It must be realised as a cold unalterable fact that while adult suffrage is to be concomitant of the new constitution, it is not part of the constitution. The suffrage can be extended or restricted more or less at will by the very members who are elected by that means, providing they get the support of the Governor for such a change."

"Therefore," said the Governor, "if this great right which is to be given to all our adult population is to be preserved, and if opportunity is not to be taken by the House of Representatives to create an oligarchy by re-imposing a very restricted franchise on the pretext of an irresponsible electorate, the population must commence at once to school itself to reasonableness and to appreciate the right to vote, is something worth striving to maintain as well as to secure."

The reader might be surprised to learn that as The Gleaner observed:

"The suffrage is settled in Law, not in the Constitution. In the same way that the present legislature is going to enact a measure providing for adult suffrage, the new Government can enact legislation to restore the present limited vote, or to limit it even further."

Continuing its warning The Gleaner said: "Let us remember that in a colony like the Bahamas, which has a two-chamber legislature, the suffrage is one of the most restricted in the world. What has been happening there can happen here unless the public is jealous of its rights and zealous in living up to its sober responsibilities."

The vote, it went on was "an inalienable right of every citizen." And the fact that politicians will at certain times try to fool their public "is proof of the power of the citizen in a democracy where every adult has a potent vote. If the citizen were not supreme the politician might be unconcerned about convincing him that a particular administrative process was right.

"The supremacy of the citizen voter ensures as far as possible, that the administration of a country is conducted for the general benefit of the entire population. That is why it is one of the cornerstones of democracy."

C. Roy Reynolds is freelance journalist.

Back to Commentary