THE HOUSE of Representatives has passed the Bills necessary for the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) in a parliamentary session distinguished for its high standard of debate which, unlike many other occasions, did not degenerate into vulgarity and personal attacks. All the participants, recognising that the issues involved are of historic importance, rose to the occasion, arguments on both sides being advanced with skill, wit and passion.Now that the thrust and cut of the debate is over, it is possible to discern two main contending points of view, one anchored in nationalism, the other in pragmatism. There are persuasive considerations on both sides. The Prime Minister is an advocate for the argument based on nationalism, the appealing concept that a truly independent and sovereign nation should appoint its own highest court and develop its own judicial philosophy. Mr. Seaga, Leader of the Opposition, has taken a pragmatic approach, arguing that, without the mandate of a referendum, the CCJ would not be entrenched and could be subject to political manipulation.
There are counter-considerations to both sides: nationalism can ripen into hubris resulting in bad timing and biting off more than one can chew; pragmatism can degenerate into cynicism in which all motives are suspect and no one is given the benefit of a doubt.
Legalities aside, this newspaper has consistently advocated the holding of a referendum which would reflect the respect due to citizens in a democracy regardless of the niceties of a Constitution crafted at another time in history. Those putting forward the argument based on nationalism accuse the pragmatists of low self-esteem, of having no faith in our capacity and wisdom to run our own affairs. It would seem that the same argument should support the holding of a referendum for the refusal to do so could well be seen as having little or no faith in the wisdom of the populace to decide their destiny. At best the refusal of a referendum is a form of paternalism, at worst a manipulation for political advantage.
Perhaps, the time is most opportune for the Government to mount, through the Jamaica Information Service (JIS), a public education campaign on the benefits of a CCJ. To some extent, the discussions to date assume that the general populace understand the issues at stake. On the other hand, the Government has used the argument that a lack of understanding may cause any referendum to be shrouded in other political considerations. To the extent that this is a valid concern, then the Government has a duty to use the resources available to it, to educate the public.
The majority of Jamaicans may buy the nationalism argument because it is easier to understand and appeals to a basic pride. The refusal to test this result by a referendum is therefore ironic and diminishes the otherwise historic import of the proposed changes.
Another irony is that, based on an appeal filed by the pragmatists, it is the Privy Council itself which later this year will decide whether it can be abolished as Jamaica's appellate court by a simple majority vote in Parliament. Given that the outcome of this will have deep and long-lasting repercussions, we suggest a sustained public education campaign followed by a referendum. The Government should not be afraid to trust the intelligence of the Jamaican people on this issue.
