THE EDITOR, Sir:
IT IS several days now since the Prime Minister spoke on the road to republican status. Maybe it is because, here in England, we only get to see an abridged version of The Gleaner online, but I for one am disturbed at the absence so far of much in-depth response.
I wonder if this reflects what we teach (or don't teach) in school. In the first decade of Independence, we tried to introduce every schoolchild to ideas about our government; remember 'Civics for Young Jamaicans?' And you had to do Civics if you wanted a Full Certificate at J.S.C. So most youngsters got at least a little exposure to the glories(?) of 'the Westminster model' of government. Which was probably fine for the time, but history moves on.
Few will object in principle to Jamaicanising the office of Head of State. But shouldn't an amendment to an entrenched clause of the constitution go further than that?
How do other countries organise their institutions of government? How well does it work for them, and might it have any lessons for us?
When the Queen ceases to be formal head of state, what role do we have in mind for the President of the new republic? Will he simply replace the Governor-General as a figurehead who only intervenes as a last resort when things look like going awry? As I understand it, that is the role of the president in Germany, or, nearer home, in Trinidad and Tobago. Or does P.J. propose to divide some powers between President and Prime Minister along the lines we see in France or Guyana? Or will we go the American road and dispense altogether with the office of Prime Minister?
Surely this is the fundamental set of options we should start discussing. After that, of course, we'll have to decide how we select the President.
The symbols of Independence are one thing, but, to ensure smooth governance, we need to get the institutional structure right.
I am, etc.,
JOHN REVILL
wjrevill@lycos.com
Sheffield, England
Via Go-Jamaica
