Eleven years ago, then Prime Minister P.J. Patterson,
overcome with joy at Jamaica’s
historic qualification for the World Cup declared a national holiday, an act
that he in fact could not legally do. In the aftermath of the backlash Prime
Minister Paterson pronounced in Parliament -‘The law is not a shackle’.
This infamous statement followed, now retired Paterson, for the rest of
his political life. The truth is however, that all he was doing was telling it
like it is.
The Prime Minister of Jamaica controls the Executive and
Legislative branch of the government, he is therefore free to pass or amend any
law he sees fit.
Save for those provisions enshrined in the Constitution,
here, in this document are the only shackles that bind all Jamaican’s. To alter
the Constitution the Prime Minister needs overwhelming control of parliament (a
two thirds majority) and in some cases even that is not enough, for some
provisions can only be changed by referendum, that is, by the direct action of
the people. For this reason the Judiciary armed with the Constitution, trumps
the Prime Minister. Ultimately it is this document that protects our democracy,
and all our rights, by its contents are we protected from state tyranny.
It is for this reason that countries guard the provisions of
their Constitution with almost paranoid attention and treat with absolute
disdain any violations or infractions, especially those committed by the
government.
So must we evaluate the current dual citizenship debate, the
fairness of the provision is secondary to its treatment, as a part of our Constitution.
If we the people of Jamaica
feel it needs to be changed this can be debated and decided and if needed,
amended.
What we must be concerned, even frightened about are that
more than 15% of the parliamentarians are sitting in the house in contravention
of our Constitution, that our Judiciary has apparently modified the Constitution
via common law, that our Prime Minister
has referred to a provision in the Constitution as a ‘technicality’.
And that, in light of all this, none of our legal luminaries
or the fifth estate has sprang to the defense of the Constitution.
Rather than continue to shed tears and rant at our oblivious
ignorance at this horrendous event, let me instead project this incident on our
neighbors to the north.
I ask you to imagine the fireball of indignation that would
be ignited if the President of the United States had the temerity to refer to
any provision in the Constitution of the United States as a ‘technicality’, or
the inferno of outrage that would erupt if it were discovered the 15% of
members sitting in the Congress of The United States of America were doing so
in contravention of the Constitution, or the legal earthquake that would shake
the Supreme Court of the United States should it uphold a lower courts ruling
that modified a provision in the Constitution.
If we as Jamaican’s continue to expect little from our
leaders, that’s exactly what we will get. If we do not hold them to a higher
level of expectation do not expect them to voluntarily rise to it.
