Delroy Chuck IF THE government really believes in democracy, its openness and transparency, the opportunity to engage and educate the citizenry, the clash and competition of ideas, the beauty of and challenge to debate, and is faithful to its mission of putting people first, then it would have little difficulty agreeing to a referendum on the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
In a democracy, the people must decide and it is simply moral cowardice and political weakness to deny the people the right to choose, especially on such an important issue as the final appellate court.
What does the government have to fear? If it believes in a participatory democracy, as it claims, then it is natural and obligatory to let the people decide, clearly and openly, on important issues. A referendum to participate in the CCJ would serve to endorse and strengthen the government's position. If the time is right to remove the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (JCPC), and replace it with the CCJ, it is the duty of leaders to convince followers that the course is right and the former should have no difficulty explaining and persuading the latter to choose correctly. If the time is not right and the people so decide, then a government has to live with that decision. The people's decision must be paramount.
REASONS
The reasons given by the government for refusing or not agreeing to a referendum, are without merit. Long before the October 2002 General Election, the Prime Minister, P.J. Patterson, expressly stated he would not put the issue of the final court to a referendum, yet some of his supporters have the audacity to argue that because the matter of the removal of the JCPC and replacement with the CCJ was a part of the PNP's manifesto, the matter had already been decided. Nothing could be further from the truth. At no time during the last general election was the final appellate court an issue in any debate or discussion on the radio, TV, political platform or the people informed they were deciding on the issue. What was always clear is that the PNP declared that a parliamentary majority would decide the issue, while the JLP felt that this is a fundamental matter for the people through a referendum.
I think it is time to lift the people's consciousness and ability to decide beyond voting for the head or the bell. In truth, the government fears that the issue will become embroiled in partisan division, which I rather doubt, but even if true, so what? If the JLP can convince a majority that the time is not right to remove the JCPC then what is wrong with that? If the PNP believes, misguidedly no doubt, that it is the superior intellectual party then it should not fear the challenge to convince the people to vote the right way in a referendum. I have no doubt that it is time the so-called learned people in the society divest themselves of the arrogance of intellect to believe they alone can weight issues and choose better than those without book education, high school certificates, degrees, or even Ph.Ds.
DEBATE
The present debate on the CCJ has certainly brought out the best and worst in many of us. It is absolutely wonderful to see ordinary Jamaicans exhibiting the courage and performing their duty to educate the public on its rights and freedoms. At the same time, it pains deeply to see how partisan detractors use the issue to bring out their racist tendencies and to belittle others as colonial or monarchical.
Jamaicans for Justice (JFJ), the Jamaican Bar Association (JBA) and others deserve credit and commendation for bringing the issue forcefully to the people. The media campaign by Jamaicans for Justice to have a referendum is admirable and deserves full support. To be sure, the Opposition first called for the referendum and will not back down but when civil groups like JFJ and professional bodies like the JBA mount a campaign it removes the partisan bickering and puts the issue firmly before all well-thinking members of the public. It is certainly time for other professional bodies, civil and social groups, business interests, etc. to come forward and declare their position on this very important issue.
Constitutional reform, including our final appellate court, is too important an issue to leave to the politicians, and the people remain silent to their peril.
Participatory democracy sounds beautiful but it must be given some meaning. It must go beyond talk or the occasional meet-the-people or the now forgotten "Live-and- Direct" consultations. The opening up of the parliamentary committees to the press and the public is a major step forward in the process of building participatory democracy. Yet, the process seems more cosmetic and an exercise in public relations instead of a real opportunity for the people to make a meaningful contribution to the decision- making process of Parliament. Still, Parliament cannot be blamed if the people do not come forward and make use of this forum. At a time when the country is in crisis, it is certainly time for everyone to come forward and fully participate in our fledgling democracy, it is surely the key to progress.
Delroy Chuck is an attorney-at-law and JLP Member of Parliament. He can be contacted by e-mail at Delchuck@
