Peter Espeut | Democracy or oligocracy

One of the reasons the popularity of the Andrew Holness administration is plummeting is their high-handed approach to governance and their resistance to genuine consultation with the Jamaican people. This is playing out right before our eyes in how they are going about the important matter of constitutional reform. How the government is approaching the crafting of a new constitution for independent Jamaica brings into question what the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) understands the word “democracy” to mean.

There is general agreement that the preparation process for the constitution we have now was flawed. The referendum of September 19,1961 determined that a (small) majority of Jamaicans (38,942 out of 479,220 who voted) preferred Independence to Federation, but not what Jamaica’s Independence constitution should look like. Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley each with their retinue in tow travelled to England to meet with our British colonial masters, and together they negotiated, resulting in the 1962 Independence Constitution. There were no public meetings or consultations, no hearings of suggestions from civil society, no tapping of public opinion on what the supreme law of the land should contain. Only the views of our two major political parties – and the interests they represented, including their financial backers – were taken into account.

The word “democracy” [from the Greek “kratos” (rule, power, grasp) and “demos” (the people)] means rule by the people. It was US President Abraham Lincoln who made famous the definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, and for the people”.

The parties of Bustamante and Manley have interpreted “democracy” in a symbolic way. Jamaica’s Constitution is written such that by voting for their representatives in parliament, the people have delegated to them their power to rule. The parliament then rules “in the name of the people”, and this is called a “representative democracy”.

DISSATISFIED

Many people are dissatisfied with this approach, as it marginalises the input of “the people” to once every five years or so. They would argue that this approach is not really a democracy, but an “oligocracy” [ “oligos” in Greek means “few”, so “oligocracy” means “rule by a few”].

Switzerland does not take this approach to democracy; they frequently consult their “demos” about a variety of issues with frequent referenda. Last year (2022) Switzerland held 11 referenda: four on February 13, three on May 15, and four on September 25. The Swiss people gave their decisions on a wide range of legislation, including: “protecting children and young adults from tobacco advertising”, “introducing a tax on streaming services such as Disney+ and Netflix, which would fund local audio and/or audiovisual productions”, and “prohibiting experiments on living creatures, including both humans and animals”.

Switzerland held 13 referenda in 2021 and five in 2020.

Now, that is democracy!

Many would argue that Jamaica’s present Constitution was not prepared by democratic means, but by a political and economic oligopoly. Surely we can do better in 2023!

But it seems that Jamaica is deeply oligarchic! A small committee has been selected by the JLP government to drive Jamaica’s Constitutional reform process. When the committee was first named, a certain person was said to be representing “the church”, but “the church” knew nothing about it! The JLP government chose the person to represent “the church”. Is that real representation? Who is that person really representing?

After protests, “the church” was allowed to name its genuine representative.

The JLP government also chose persons who would “represent” civil society and youth. Who do they really represent?

POOR START

I think this is a really poor start to an important national process.

It has been announced that, so far, six meetings have been held, all in secret. This does not bode well for the process. How does the government expect to get widespread public buy-in without widespread public awareness of what is being discussed, and what is at stake?

So far the committee has not invited the public to appear before it to submit their ideas and suggestions as to what Jamaica’s democracy should look like, or what kind of republic we want. And no public education campaign on the issues has been launched.

And yet a cochair of the committee has announced that the bill to amend the constitution will be submitted to parliament before the end of May! Next month! What kind of public consultations and public discussion can take place between now and then? Shades of our 1962 Independence Constitution!

I began by stating: “One of the reasons the popularity of the Andrew Holness administration is plummeting is their high-handed approach to governance and their resistance to genuine consultation with the Jamaican people. This is playing out right before our eyes in how they are going about the important matter of constitutional reform”. Now I think you understand what I mean.

The government claims that there is “consensus” on almost everything, except how Jamaica’s president is to be chosen. Consensus by whom? Our politicians? This is not 1962. Jamaicans are not going to accept that our two political parties achieving “consensus” among themselves is national consensus. They need to be reminded that in our last general election in 2020 only 38 per cent of those registered to vote selected one or other of the two tribes. The Jamaican people are not with them!

How do they expect to gain the support of a two-thirds majority of those who turn out for a referendum if they are not transparent in the committee deliberations about constitutional reform, if they don’t entertain public discussion, and if they don’t provide an opportunity for the public to make submissions?

I for one will lobby hard for a “NO!” vote in any referendum called under these oligopolistic and oligarchic conditions.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and a development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com