Devon Dick

Last week, Lisa, a letter writer, responded to my article 'Foreign allegiance in Parliament?' (August 21) by claiming that persons who have sworn foreign allegiance to another country could be loyal to Jamaica. She also added that there was an instance in history when a citizen betrayed his country.

Even if what Lisa said was true, she still has the constitution to deal with. She needs to change the constitution of Jamaica which debars persons from being parliamentarians, whether in the House of Representatives or Senate, and hence Cabinet, who have sworn allegiance to another state or power.

It is hoped that at a minimum, persons who offer themselves to serve in our Parliament have read the constitution of the land and are commitment to upholding it. But separate and apart from the legal argument there is the practical one about loyalty.

Lisa's loyalty test will lead us down a dangerous path. In the Church, Believers' Baptism is a test of loyalty. The act is a symbol that one will be loyal to Christ forever. However, some have been baptised who have been disloyal, but it does not invalidate baptism. Similarly, because some citizens have been disloyal it does not invalidate citizenship as a criterion of one's loyalty to country.

Minimum standards

There needs to be some minimum standards and that is what the constitution appears to be trying to uphold. Some years ago, I expressed disappointment with the Jamaica Football Federation's policy which allowed a footballer to represent Jamaica who has never been to Jamaica.

Based on some persons' argument, then one does not need to even be a citizen of Jamaica to make laws for Jamaica. We could go back to the colonial days of having political power residing in a foreign land. History has shown that when the colonial power brokers resided in countries such as Canada, New Zealand and Australia (a test of loyalty), those countries developed unlike in the West Indies, Africa and India. Where there were absentee 'power brokers', there was no such loyalty. Instead these territories were exploited for the benefit of the imperial power.

I do not want someone who has divided loyalties to represent my country as a parliamentarian. There will be times when, a legislation or policy will not find favour with a foreign state and perhaps, just perhaps, that person would argue or vote in such a way as not to jeopardise the citizenship status in a foreign country. I know Jamaicans who have British citizenship who support the England cricket team instead of the West Indies team. Can you imagine what could happen in Parliament?

Cut the pretence

And let us cut the pretence. A Jamaican getting citizenship in another country is usually a sign of lack of confidence in Jamaica. It is an opportunity to gain access to benefits that are perceived not to be in Jamaica. Persons who lack confidence in the future of Jamaica should not be entrusted with leading the country.

Furthermore, dual citizenship is open to a few privileged persons. It is the policy of foreign governments to accord that privilege to the best, the brightest and where there is a shortage of skills. However, the majority in this country will never be so favoured. Leaders in Parliament should not feel comfortable to have such an advantage over persons they govern. They should be making a sacrifice on behalf of the governed.

Who is eligible to be in Parliament? A citizen of Jamaica who has not sworn allegiance to a foreign state or power thereby demonstrating that he or she is loyal to Jamaica only, has confidence in Jamaica, and will make sacrifices for Jamaica.