Livingstone Thompson, Guest Columnist
THE GOVERNMENT must be commended for pressing ahead with the plans for the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice ( CCJ), despite protestations from the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP), the Jamaican Bar Association, Wilmot Perkins, Lloyd Barnett and others who evidently have similar anxieties and fears.
Although based on technical points of law, procedure or politics, the protestations all seem to reflect one fundamental fear that of emancipation and independence.
The tenor of the arguments against the character and place of the CCJ resemble very much the kinds of questions and concerns that were raised by the planter class in 1834. A fundamental concern at the time was whether the Jamaican society could afford the freedom of the slaves. Predicating its assumptions on the necessity for an institution like slavery, the 19th-century capitalist class could not envisage a future without the style of life to which they had become accustomed and the labour force that was necessary to sustain that lifestyle. The arguments against emancipation, however, were coined in sociological phrases about the capacity of the Africans to cope with their freedom, or economic phrases about the well-being of the society without the abundance of free labour.
About 130 years after emancipation, similar fears were expressed at the notion of independence. The monied class, which was well secure in its benefits from the British Empire could not imagine a future beyond colonialism.
Today with the CCJ, the arguments against its establishment are proffered within the context of similar fears. Those who are not concerned about the sustainability of the justice system are concerned about the security of tenure of the judges. Those who do not question the capacity and ability of the judges, question the integrity of the regional political leadership. It all adds up to the assertion that we had better keep the Privy Council for we are not sure that we are able to dispense justice at the level of that court. In other words, we should tread cautiously in this matter which pertains to doing it ourselves.
There is a thread of suspicion about our capacity to self-govern in every respect, which runs from 1834 though 1962 to today. This presumption of mistrust in ourselves is a shackle that we will have to throw off one day. The fear of emancipation and independence will have to be forced into the past by the courage of strong, visionary leadership.
REFERENDUM
Given the tenacity displayed by the Government in respect of the CCJ, it surprises me that the ruling PNP, out of political expediency, did not put the issue of the CCJ to the public in a referendum. One can appreciate their anxiety that the JLP would use the opportunity to raise the Federation ghost, since there is yet a strong anti-self and anti-regionalism attitude that persists in this country. However, the referendum would have given an opportunity to the masses to have a more direct say. Now that the court is on to the way to being established, I suspect that if the JLP forms the next government it will hold a referendum about Jamaica's withdrawal from it and return to the Privy Council.
FEAR
This fear about the participation of the masses seems to be emerging in another way in the PNP, expressing itself in the question of who votes for the president of the party. Under the PNP's constitution, and as set out in the recently developed code of conduct for election of the next president that the party has published, the general secretary "is required to have available at all times a complete list of all recognised groups." Groups that exist only on paper will be "detected and disbarred," according to the Code of Conduct. Mind you, I find the idea very fascinating and funny, that a group, which exists only on paper, could really find people to represent it. However, a motion that was moved recently in the PNP executive meeting expresses the desire for all members of the groups, rather than the delegates of groups, to vote for the party president. Such a move, it is argued, would broaden the democratic process.
This motion is causing some concern in the party because no one wants paper delegates, coming from paper groups to be voting for the party president. The question I raise though, is whether allowing each member of the party to vote may not be inimical to the interest of the power brokers in the party, since it would be more difficult for the strategists to manage the outcome of the election process. It is a pity that the reflection on the election process for the president of the party missed dealing with the fundamental issue of engendering broad-based people participation, which might well have had a positive effect on stirring interest in national elections.
Rev. Dr. Livingstone Thompson is president of the Executive Board of the Moravian Church in Jamaica.
