Jalil Dabdoub | Constitutional reform held hostage by political immaturity

Jamaica's constitutional reform is again at risk of becoming another casualty of partisan politics. What should be a defining moment in our democratic evolution has now become an exercise in political posturing.

The unfortunate truth is that there is broad agreement on at least part of the reform, yet the parties have been unable to make progress on this long-standing issue.

Both major political parties support Jamaica becoming a republic. Yet despite this apparent consensus, progress has stalled because the parties remain divided on what should accompany that transition.

The PNP has articulated a clear philosophical position. It believes that full constitutional decolonisation requires not only replacing the monarch but also replacing the Privy Council with the CCJ as Jamaica's final appellate court. It had, in fact, taken steps under the Patterson administration to sever ties with the Privy Council and to join the CCJ.

Whether one agrees with that position or not, it is at least coherent constitutional philosophy which the PNP has consistently advocated under successive leaders.

The JLP holds a different position. It argues that republican status and the question of Jamaica's final court of appeal should be treated as separate constitutional issues. Yet beyond that distinction, the party has struggled to articulate a clear philosophical vision regarding the future of our final court of appeal.

In fact, recent public statements suggest that the Government itself remains uncertain about its preferred option. This week, Minister of Justice Delroy Chuck again floated several “possibilities” regarding Jamaica's final court of appeal. Such comments raise an uncomfortable question, does the JLP actually have a settled position on the matter? If it does, it has not communicated it effectively.

The Government's inability to articulate a clear position on Jamaica's final court of appeal after years of discussion raises serious questions about the intellectual clarity underpinning its constitutional reform vision. Indeed, one could reasonably conclude that an intellectual deficit exists at the heart of the Government's approach to this issue.

The JLP has obfuscated on articulating this issue for long enough. It is way past time for them to say what they envision as Jamaica’s final court of appeal and the reasons for their position.

Constitutional reform requires an understanding of the constitutional framework one wishes to build. That framework must be based on sound philosophical foundations. A government cannot credibly ask the country to embrace a particular constitutional arrangement while remaining uncertain of its position on one of the three critical branches of government, namely the judiciary.

The question is simple: What does the JLP ultimately envision as Jamaica's final court of appeal? If the answer is the Privy Council, then say so and defend that position on principle. If the answer is the CCJ, then say so and explain the path forward. If the answer is some alternative model, then articulate it clearly and submit it to public debate. The current strategy of perpetual ambiguity and “kicking di stone down di road” cannot continue.

Meanwhile, the Opposition must recognise that constitutional reform should not become an all-or-nothing affair. Incremental progress is certainly better than the current state of paralysis. If there is genuine consensus on republican status, then serious consideration should be given to advancing that objective while continuing discussions regarding the final court of appeal.

Politics is, at times, about give and take, but it is always first about the national interest. Waiting indefinitely for perfect agreement on every constitutional question risks achieving nothing at all and is certainly not in the national interest. 

More troubling still is the leadership vacuum that this dispute has exposed.

When the discussion is dominated by disputes over process, sequencing, and political credit rather than constitutional outcomes, our leaders appear less like statesmen guiding a nation through constitutional transformation and more like schoolboys arguing over a game of marbles. Each side appears more concerned with winning the disagreement than resolving it in the national interest.

The result is the paralysis we now face. 

Constitutional reform is never about the personal preferences or egos of individual leaders or the parties. It is solely about Jamaica's long-term national development. Yet, too often, the public discourse has descended into questions of who should meet whom, who should make the first concession, and who should receive political credit.

Leadership requires the maturity to place national interest above partisan advantage. It requires the willingness to compromise without surrendering principle while recognising that progress is sometimes achieved in increments rather than all at once.

One of Jamaica's greatest political failings is treating every national issue as a contest between orange and green. The result is paralysis, with constitutional reform being held hostage to an endless war of tribal politics

The PM and the Opposition Leader must return to the table. MP Chuck’s invitation this week to the PNP to restart the constitutional process is timely.  

The Government must clearly articulate its constitutional philosophy regarding the final court of appeal. The Opposition must remain open to incremental progress where consensus exists. 

Both must demonstrate the political maturity that this country has so desperately yearned for over the decades. The failure to do so is an indictment of our political leadership.

Jamaica cannot continue postponing major constitutional decisions because two political parties are unable to agree on sequencing, process, or political credit. 

Nations are not built through ego but through principled leadership, and leaders who recognise that they are mere servants of the people, who are duty bound to put their party, their ego, and their interests aside while jealously advocating the nation’s development.

The question now is whether our political leaders possess the vision, intellectual clarity, and maturity necessary to complete this journey.

Jalil Dabdoub is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com