Ronald Thwaites | Some straight talk

It should be evident to all but the true believers that the constitutional reform process is flopping. The Bill which was to have been laid in parliament by the end of May has not been drafted. The carefully contrived timetable designed for climax and dénouement in early 2025 is off the rails. It was expected that this timing would have created a flood of legacy for the creators and a wave of resurgent nationalist gratitude, enough to stimulate an electoral triumph. Well, those prospects are clearly fizzling. Why?

The vast majority of Jamaicans have no idea what is going on in the 14 or more secret meetings of the Constitutional Reform Committee (CRC). The audience at the ever-so- sparse consultations comes away with more questions than answers. Even the one point of consensus that we thought was generally shared, to abolish the British monarchy, is becoming shaky.

STAR CHAMBER

Why again? Because from the dribble we have heard from those who think they control us, if replacing Charles with an overpaid local proto-king is the plan, many will object. So what has been agreed up to now? A member of the committee says that some members are afraid of live-streaming the proceedings because the publicity might inhibit their candour. Anyone who is such a coward ought to be excluded immediately. They are conspirators against their only legitimate asset, public trust.

Since they are afraid of the cameras while they feign to be the trustees of our business, where are the verbatim notes published in real time? At least those would help us to stimulate discussion. Do the Opposition and special interest members who are there to counter the creeping autocracy of the government members, appreciate how fatally they are eroding their personal and institutional credibility by going along with this Star Chamber operation?

THE CHARTER

This is all wrong-footed and contrary to the public weal. The nation needs constitutional reform for us to do better for ourselves than what was largely done for us, in haste, in 1962 to reinforce the principles on which we will flourish as a cohesive society; to refresh the forms, powers, restraints and responsibilities of governance in a free and democratic society. Our ideals need to be reaffirmed explicitly. The context of the 21st century is not the same as it was more than 60 years ago.

The closest we came to this sacred process was in the crafting of the Charter of Fundamental Rights in 2011 to improve the vague and flaccid chapter three of the original instrument. The liberty of the subject is the first canon of constitutional order. That is why every sentiment of wanting to diminish the charter, expressed or implicit, is repugnant. For me, an oath committing to protect the rights and responsibilities contained in the charter would have to be a prerequisite for admission to membership of the reform body. And were that to be so, there are those presently on the CRC who have already shown themselves to be disqualified.

Also there can be no confidence in a committee which does not acknowledge the absurdity and indignity of us proceeding to republican status without first or at least simultaneously delinking from the British Privy Council as our final, but mostly inaccessible court of appeal. The letter to the editor in Saturday Gleaner by attorney Douglas Leys offers persuasive reasoning.

ON LEADERSHIP

So Andrew and Mark better draw long bench behind Marisa’s chair and chart a new direction for change. First, be realistic about the timeframe. Rushing towards a referendum will lead to its rejection. Next forget about claiming authorship and legacy. The only worthwhile legacy has to be a joint one, shared between all leaders who show self-sacrificial mettle rather than obsession with one one-upmanship. And even that is only likely to come after the life-span of the present players.

Then and most difficult of all, there has to be a comprehensive programme of public education starting in infant school and cascading upwards into every nerve of social media. Jamaicans have to be taught why a constitution is important for their lives, asked to think and pray about what it should contain going forward and persuaded why and who they should trust with its formulation and superintendence.

Put aside a full year and nuff dollars for this exercise. No. Better reserve two years given the tragic levels of illiteracy, as well as our propensity for distraction. The idea is not to erase differences, but to increase understanding. The present top-down, talking-to pretence at consultation lacks the broad foundation of informed opinion to rescue it from being labelled contemptuous.

PUBLIC CONFIDENCE

For what pedigree can a constitution have if not based on substantial public confidence? Using that test, ask yourself whether the secret meetings, redacted or withheld minutes and three or four town hall meetings, meet the required standard. They do not.

Archbishop Richards asked the following recently. “Can our leaders and parliamentary colleagues find common ground to unite in addressing national imperatives as “beneficial adversaries” with critical approaches that seek meaning rather than give cause for chaos, seeking what is according to justice for advancing the well-being of our nation without unnecessary, useless politicking and acrimony”?

Well, can they? Will we insist?

POSTSCRIPT

Finally, and in a respectful whisper to elected representatives, in your flaying of the Integrity Commission, they are not the ones being brought into disrepute. Sadly, you are! For being so defensive and for many of you refusing to sign the Leadership Code of Conduct, it’s embarrassing to realise that the public trusts the Integrity Commission more than us politicians.

Rev Ronald G. Thwaites is an attorney-at-law. He is former member of parliament for Kingston Central and was the minister of education. He is the principal of St Michael’s College at the UWI. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com.