By Franklin W Knight





In Morte d'Arthur by Lord Tennyson, the solitary knight, Sir Bedivere, approached the dying king and bemoaned the frightfulness of his new condition as a lonely knight in a hostile world. King Arthur consoled the wavering knight by telling him that his comfort zone existed no longer for change was inevitable. He should simply pull himself together and adjust to the new reality. Arthur's admonition has relevance today. All things are transient. The world advances and in time outgrows even those laws that in our father's days were best. History is change.

Written constitutions are relatively new in governmental structures. The constitution of the United States, conventionally regarded as the oldest still in use, was originally a short document that set up the structure of government. That was sufficient to get it ratified in 1787, but immediately thereafter the citizens of the newly established state realised that the original document had many shortcomings. In 1789 they proposed 10 amendments to the original constitution that became the Bill of Rights two years later.


The United States amended its constitution 27 times since the days of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. From the beginning, opinion was sharply divided about the constitution. Indeed, the US constitution did not enjoy the widespread support and unanimity that some of its zealous supporters advocate today. Only three states, Delaware, New Jersey and Georgia, unanimously supported the constitution in its most euphoric days.

The vote for ratification was very close in Rhode Island, New York, New Hampshire, Virginia, and Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, South Carolina and North Carolina. Although the manner of ratification varied from state to state, 545 of the 1616 voters decided against the constitution. This was not an indication that the constitution was flawed. It remains a brilliant and highly original document that has largely stood the test of time. But no constitution can be static while society is dynamic. The amendments to the US constitution illustrate this.

So it is with the Jamaica constitution. It was written for the 1950s with little imagination and less consciousness of change. It has seldom been amended. Today, like Sir Bedivere, it is time to make a new evaluation of the constitution in light of the changed reality of Jamaican politics and society. The constitution is not serving Jamaica very well, and like any old motor it needs urgent major overhaul.

Yet suggesting that the constitution needs drastic overhaul does not indicate that it is unsuitable for Jamaica in its entirety. The key is to make it relevant for the present conditions of Jamaica and bring it in line with reality. For this it might be time to appoint a constitutional committee drawn, not as in 1962 from a joint bipartisan committee of the legislature but rather from a representative cross-section of society. No organised group should be excluded from the deliberations and its mandate should be simple: keep what works and reform what does not.

One area that clearly needs re-examination concerns chapter four of the original constitution regarding the appointment and role of the governor general. The governor general represents the Queen of England and is endowed with extraordinary powers, although there is a provision that he - and the constitution stipulates that the person is masculine - acts "in most cases in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister, in some cases also after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition, and in other cases in the recommendation of such authorities as the Services Commission and the Privy Council".

A governor general in modern Jamaica is an expensive anachronism. The present governor general is not even a member of the Queen's religious denomination. Normally, this would not be a major consideration except that in England the role of head of the church is very important. But the more serious question is to what degree the governor general represents the Queen of England, and whether that role is still relevant in an independent Jamaica.

Symbols are very important in the fomenting of a nation and retaining the political icon of British sovereignty compromises and retards the development of a healthy Jamaican self-consciousness. If Jamaica wants to be truly independent, the symbol of the queen as the titular head of state must go. She has her rightful and honoured place as head of the Commonwealth of Nations but not as head of a new Jamaica.

The present constitution enshrines a two-party system and provides no contingencies for the simultaneous failure of both parties. There is nothing inherently wrong with a two-party monopoly of the political process. Yet efficacy in a democracy means the greatest good for the greatest number, and if the two parties fail to represent the majority of the people or the common good, then it is time to revise the system. In any case, few of the world's leading democracies today operate with only two major parties.

England has three major parties and the present government is a coalition of two parties. Canada has four major national parties which, except for the New Conservative Party, do not necessarily synchronise with provincial parties bearing the same name. Germany has four major parties represented in Parliament and any party getting more than five per cent of the national vote is entitled to parliamentary representation. Across Latin America, political party structure is even more fragmented. Chile has eight viable national parties. Costa Rica has four major parties. Brazil has 21 parties in the Congress with four dominant ones. Neither in Chile nor in Brazil can any single party attract enough support to control the government. Coalitions therefore represent a normal part of political negotiations. At present Chile, Costa Rica and Brazil rank among the better administered and economically advanced countries of Latin America. Plurality of parties does not presuppose political instability or retarded economic development.

A new Jamaica constitution should expand political access, reduce the permanence of political service and revise the compensation structure of public officials. That would be a good start.

November 24, 2010

jamaicaobserver