Wilberne Persaud, Financial Gleaner Columnist

My lawyer friend says: "If we can leave cheap parochial politics out of major decision making processes, we might come up with a worthwhile result.

When the American constitution came into being, the excesses of George III were very much in mind, and a good effort at redressing wrong yielded a pretty impressive result.

In the case of Jamaica, there has been dereliction of duty in designing a constitution suitably tailored for Jamaica's circumstances."

We can solve the problem with the following changes:

At time of being nominated a candidate must file an affidavit revealing all countries of which the intended nominee is a citizen.

A specific indication could be made so that the intended nominee swears whether before the date of election he will renounce foreign citizenship.

A paragraph in the affidavit should read: 'I the undersigned accept that any false declaration in this affidavit makes me liable to a fine in the amount of $250,000 and/or criminal proceedings can be instituted against me which could lead to my imprisonment for a period of 30 days and upon such conviction I would be ineligible to hold elected office for a period of seven years.'

The electorate would be entitled by law to see this disclosure affidavit.

LAWS TO LIVE BY

In this way the electorate itself can decide whether it wants to elect a 'dual' or 'multiple' citizenship holder.

Seems all well and good but there are other matters. First it appears unreasonable, perhaps morally unacceptable that someone making and implementing laws that others must live by can by mere purchase of an airline ticket avoid all consequences of such legislation.

But dual citizenship allows that.

Some might argue too that because such a possibility exists, makes it less imperative that the member of parliament takes the required care in deliberation and judgement in the process of creating legislation.

Even more difficult to deal with is allegiance and perception of the governed.

Suppose a Parliamentarian negotiates with representatives of a foreign power, the very one whose citizenship he or she holds.

If the fact of dual citizenship was a secret coming out after the results of any agreement has been reached, there will always be the possibility of nagging questions raised.

But here's another thing: why are Commonwealth citizens treated differently by our constitution?

MIGRATING FROM POVERTY

As letter of the day writer to The Gleaner, Peter Redway, points out: "Jamaicans migrate to better themselves, escape poverty, and for educational and economic opportunities which the island could not provide."

He views denial of representational rights to dual citizens as 'idiotic' and a waste of talent. There are powerful arguments on both sides of this issue.

Usually, migrants reflect much that is positive about people be they Mexicans or Indians from the subcontinent in the United States, Vietnamese in Australia, or Jamaicans in Panama, Cuba, 1950s United Kingdom or today Canada and the USA. Regardless of views to the contrary, receiving countries benefit immensely from the talents and activities of migrants.

Migration has been a way of life for Jamaicans for a very long time. Marcus Garvey obviously held that his world view and talent could only be effectively pursued from the US.

But some never truly understood and accepted that until long after his death and our achievement of independence.

Commitment of Jamaicans abroad to their homeland is demonstrated in no small way by the level of remittances rivalling earnings from tourism.

Difficult one

This is undoubtedly a difficult one. Optimally, it should not be played out against the backdrop of partisan politics.

That it is going to be difficult to remove 'parochial politics' from our discussion is not in question but for Jamaica's good it needs to be. Currently our minister of finance must be an elected member of parliament.

Could it be that we consider allowing dual citizenship but reserve certain positions for Jamaican citizens only? In a democracy who decides? Should it not be the people? Can we trust the people?

A big question seems to have had resolution a week ago. The 'people' were against regulation of Cash Plus. Reports suggested they held more trust in that institution than government itself. Yet today the evidence is in: Cash Plus operated almost in the classic Ponzi scheme mode.

False confidence

New investor money paid returns to the old. Investments of funds garnered seemed to have been entered into more for publicity, to instil false confidence than for their intrinsic value.

Indeed many of them were never concluded. But solving this kind of problem is for another column. In the meantime perhaps the dual citizenship issue should be put to the people by means of spirited and informed debate. Gullibility, greed and 'street smarts' - reliance on timing of entry and exit - should not have the same influence in this case.

West Portland MP Daryl Vaz. - File