Editorial | Good sense on Constitution

This newspaper may have misread Prime Minister Andrew Holness’ posture on constitutional reform in the immediate aftermath of last month’s general election.

As we indicated in our October 2 comment in these columns, The Gleaner assumed that it was Dr Holness’ intention to attempt to quickly cut through the chaff of reform priorities with the Opposition leader, Mark Golding.

We also interpreted Mr Golding’s appointment of himself as the point person on constitutional matters in the Opposition’s shadow Cabinet as a willingness to reciprocate. In other words, the two leaders would clear the decks, agree on the urgent items to be pursued, reach an accord on the sequencing of others, then leave their underlings to get on with the nuts and bolts of the programme. They would be involved thereafter only to, if necessary, clear otherwise insurmountable logjams and to add the imprimatur to the process at its end.

It is understandable in the circumstances that Mr Golding felt slighted, and that he was being shunted to deal with a junior, after the prime prime minister’s public call, during his swearing-in speech, for the two leaders to “join hands” to complete the working of transitioning Jamaica from a monarchy to republican status. It was widely perceived as Mr Holness extending an olive branch of sorts.

Dr Holness, however, would have been aware that Mr Golding’s People’s National Party (PNP) had other issues on the constitutional reform agenda, which it felt should be dealt with simultaneously with removing Britain’s King Charles III as Jamaica’s sovereign. These included ditching the King’s court, the London-based Judicial Committee of the Privy Council and acceding to the criminal and civil jurisdictions of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).

THREE OBVIOUS OPTIONS

Whatever may be the political calculus or strategic considerations that caused Dr Holness to essentially tell Mr Golding that he must negotiate first with the justice minister, Delroy Chuck, the resulting impasse need not be a permanent stumbling block to the advancement of constitutional reform. It may just mean adding another layer to the process in the early rounds of negotiations, before direct engagement between the leaders.

Should the prime minister insist that Mr Golding first talk to Mr Chuck, who now has responsibility for constitutional reform, the Opposition leader has three obvious options.

One of these, which this newspaper would vigorously oppose, is for the Opposition leader to walk away from the process, pushing constitutional reform deeper into deadlock. Indeed, given the current configuration of the Parliament, where it requires a two-thirds majority in both chambers to amend entrenched sections of the Constitution, any bill brought to the House could not advance. Further, with the Opposition absent, any discussions/negotiations about the primary law would be robbed of legitimacy. It could be, however, that the Opposition could be made to pay a political price for such a posture.

Or, Mr Golding could, notwithstanding his public complaint about the prime minister’s action, get past what he and others interpret as a demeaning insult and, with Mr Chuck, set an agenda for the reform process. Mr Chuck would then take the matter to his boss for assessment and feedback, which would then be relayed to Mr Golding. The process could ping-pong in that fashion for a while until a consensus of some sort is arrived at.

The Opposition leader’s third option on this score is to do what has been suggested by political analyst and former PNP member Clyde Williams, who recommended that the Opposition leader assign his shadow justice minister, Zuleika Jess, to hold those initial talks with Mr Chuck.

It need not be Ms Jess. It could be someone else. And if the process becomes politically cynical, someone of junior rank to her. This newspaper, however, does not expect this important issue to be taken to the point of absurdity.

DIRECT TALKS

The Gleaner’s preference, as we indicated before it was known that the potential impasse had arisen, is for direct talks between the prime minister and the leader of the Opposition, as a signal of the reset of the constitutional reform project, which found itself in a political cul de sac under the leadership of Dr Holness’ previous constitutional reform czar, Marlene Malahoo Forte.

This newspaper supports, and encourages, Jamaica’s quick accession to the CCJ as its apex court in civil and criminal matters. Exiting the King’s Privy Council is not a complex constitutional action.

At the same time, we agree broadly with the suggestion of our columnist Gordon Robinson that a reset of the constitutional process should include establishing a new committee, chaired by someone who is from outside of Parliament.

This, however, cannot happen in a vacuum. It is in this context that The Gleaner proposed that Messrs Holness and Golding meet to establish the priorities for the reform process, as well as the sequencing of the exercise, without preventing the public’s say.

For in the final analysis, the reform process also needs political support, including from the organisations led by Dr Holness and Mr Golding.