Robert Buddan
THE ELECTION of Bruce Golding to the leadership of the JLP represents nothing less than a major breakthrough for the political system as a whole. For the first time in 10 years the country can renew its drive towards a modern and more democratic constitution of the kind recommended by the Joint Select Committee of the Houses of Parliament on Constitutional and Electoral Reform in 1995.
In a refreshing change of thinking, Mr. Golding said, "It is our view that after 40 years of independence, Caribbean countries should have been able to establish their own critical institutions to consolidate their sovereignty." He was speaking to the CCJ question but his words are true for our
political institutions in general.
It is another refreshing change of thinking to see a new spirit of democracy in the party that requires it to debate the options of a modified Westminster or separation of powers model. Mr. Golding declared, "We will, as a matter of urgency, be deliberating on these important issues within the party and we intend to place them on the table for discussions with the government."
As for more comprehensive constitutional reform, Mr. Golding again broke with the JLP's tradition of putting a purely party position ahead of larger interests saying, "We are ready to sit down with the government not only on these issues but on any matter that will advance the interests of the people of Jamaica."
In a spirit of bipartisanship not heard from the JLP side in years, Mr. Golding appealed to the better judgement of his party saying, "Some of you, I know, get upset when you hear that we are meeting with the government. But listen to me. We operate a two-party democracy and the interests of the country sometimes demands that both sides interact not in an adversarial way but in a deliberative way."
On the same theme he
continued, "We must continue to tear down the walls of political tribalism. We have made some significant progress but more needs to be done because you can't build a nation that is strong, secure and prosperous if it is bitterly divided on partisan lines, one hand can't clap. We must find a way to unite this country behind common goals."
THE ANTI-TRIBAL TRADITION
There has always been an anti-tribal tradition in Jamaica's politics and it is now possible to rediscover it and make it the dominant tradition. Bruce Golding's words of 2005 echo Norman Manley's philosophy 60 years before. By 1945 there was a split of the working class into a 'labour' party and a 'nationalist' party. Mr. Manley advised that they should not be considered as two progressive movements but as one progressive movement, consisting of different classes of people. Then, while speaking at the PNP's annual conference of 1964, Mr. Manley affirmed the importance of our two-party democracy saying, "If there is one thing one year of independence has taught us, it taught us how vital it is to the peace and security and freedom of our people that we should have two parties in this country." It is from these two statements that one can identify Manley's philosophy of "two parties one progressive movement."
It is also timely to recall the warning of Governor Hugh Foot in 1953 on the occasion at which Jamaica obtained a new constitution granting it ministerial government. Speaking in the Legislative Council he said, "There are, it is true, from time to time attempts to split the people of Jamaica into bitterly opposed camps to split town people from country people, split larger farmers from small farmers, to split politicians from officials, to split the educated from the illiterate, to split employers from workers and to create enmity on the basis of colour or religion or class.
"It is the task of enlightened statesmanship to defeat and destroy all efforts to split the
people of the island into warring factions, and to save Jamaica from the disaster which would come if malice and hatred divided the island."
BUILDING CONSENSUS
Mr. Golding's inaugural speech at the JLP conference last week falls in line with this anti-tribal tradition. More importantly for contemporary politics, it rejects the political opportunism evident in Delroy Chuck, who just two weeks ago demanded that the condition for the JLP's participation in discussions on the CCJ and other constitutional issues was a by-election for Mr. Golding to allow him to have a seat in Parliament. While Mr. Chuck's position implied that party interest should be put above broader national interests, Mr. Golding insists that a two-party democracy and the country's interests demand that both sides interact and deliberate.
The opportunity to build consensus lies in the work already accomplished by the joint committee on constitutional reform. It is therefore a good place to start. Mr. Golding calls for speedy implementation of the recommendations for constitutional reform on which there has already been agreement. This is exactly what the joint select committee had recommended in 1995, and it was with this in mind that the Government started such a debate in Parliament in 1996/97. However, Mr. Seaga had said there was no such understanding even though he was a signatory to the Report. At that point the debate ceased.
Now that the debate is being revived, the joint committee?s report provides a way to go forward. While Mr. Chuck wanted to split up the constitutional issues that Mr. Patterson recently offered, so that the JLP could use each in tactical plays to extract deals for the party, the joint committee had recommended that, "as far as possible those amendments on which there is unanimous agreement should be included in one Bill so as to ensure their passage in Parliament."
Mr. Golding had not signed that Report, presumably because it did not address the separation of powers model as an option. However, his speech at last week's Conference shows that he accepts many of the Report's recommendations including the Charter of Rights, impeachment of public officials, an Election Commission, and constitutional provision for local government.
However, when Mr. Golding formed the NDM in 1995, the option of a separation of powers model became part of the mix causing a three-way split between the parties. Now, however, Mr. Golding acknowledges that a modified Westminster model without full separation of legislative and executive powers might be the JLP's eventual preference. If that turns out to be the case, then the JLP and the PNP would be closer together on a model for the structure of government, one that might or might not require an executive presidency. Even then there would be a basis for bipartisan agreement. The joint committee had recommended that those matters on which there is no agreement be placed in one or more separate Bills as convenience might dictate.
MAKING BIPARTISANSHIP WORK
Progress depends ultimately on healthy bipartisanship and the next step should be to create the formula for this. One rule of bipartisanship should employ Mr. Golding's philosophy of advancing the interests of Jamaicans above all other interests; and to do so in a deliberative rather than an adversarial manner. Another rule should be mindful of Mr. Patterson's desire that bipartisanship be rather than being one that follows a stop-go pattern determined by the political interest of one side at any point in time. A third rule should be to use the experience of the members of the first joint committee. Of the original 18, six are still Members of Parliament.
These rules can be supported by the example of a successful model. The cynic should be reminded that the Electoral Advisory Committee represents a very successful example of bipartisanship in Jamaica. The EAC has survived many hard tests. One of the first was the highly charged elections of 1980. Within days of those elections, the EAC met as scheduled, keeping its focus, and went on to survive another test after the major controversies surrounding the 1983 'snap' elections.
Constitutional issues will not impose serious tests on a new bipartisanship since many of those issues have already won agreement between the two parties. What they would test is Mr. Golding and Mr. Patterson's resolve to make consensus work and for a new bipartisanship to defeat the political tribalism that Norman Manley and Hugh Foot warned against.
Robert Buddan lectures in the Department of Government, UWI, Mona. You can send your comments to: Robert.Buddan@uwimona.edu.jm or infocus@gleanerjm.com
