WE ARE pleased to note that in a recent poll more than 60 per cent of Jamaicans supported the holding of a referendum to decide whether or not to abandon the UK Privy Council in favour of a Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ). This is a position we have espoused on moral grounds notwithstanding that such a momentous decision can legally be engineered by a simple majority vote in Parliament.
And it is a position to be taken all the more seriously in light of Mr. Seaga's statement on behalf of the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) that, without a referendum, his party will feel free to withdraw from the CCJ if and when it comes to power. We do not consider this to be confrontational on the part of Mr. Seaga, who in this instance, is voicing the courage of his convictions.
The poll reveals that 38 per cent of the population are not even aware of the CCJ issue, much less being exposed to the detailed arguments pro and con. Public opinion on an issue such as the CCJ needs to be focused and the best way to do this is the holding of a referendum which itself will elevate the debate to an appropriate level in the national consciousness.
To argue that because the PNP was returned to power in the last general election gives it a moral mandate to proceed with the CCJ is disingenuous, to say the least. There was much on the minds of the people when they went to the polls in October last year, mostly political promises by both parties on how future growth in the economy would be achieved. The issue of the CCJ was far from clearly defined and was lost in the miasma of political rhetoric.
What remains puzzling, especially in light of popular support for a referendum, is why the government is so reluctant to hold one. Mr. Coore is advisor to the government on this issue and his argument that a referendum is not in keeping with Jamaica's constitutional tradition is particularly weak coming from someone who holds that the people have no 'justiciable' rights.
Jurisprudence at its highest level, regardless of venue, is influenced by an underlying philosophy and historically this has either been a liberal philosophy i.e. balanced in favour of civil rights, or an authoritarian philosophy i.e. balanced, when push comes to shove, in favour of State power over individual rights.
There is growing evidence that Mr. Patterson and his government lean towards the latter and, in our opinion, it is the people, not a cohort of politicians, who should decide which of these two alternatives should inspire the laws that govern their lives.
THE OPINIONS ON THIS PAGE, EXCEPT FOR THE ABOVE, DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF THE GLEANER.
