It is critically important for us in Jamaica to carefully consider why it is imperative to part ways with the British monarchy as head of state while at the same time remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations.

In September 1979 Prime Minister Michael Manley of the governing Peoples National Party and Leader of the Opposition Edward Seaga of the Jamaica Labor Party and senior Parliamentarians of both political parties signed and tabled in the House of Representatives a Memorandum of Understanding to part ways with the Monarchy of the United Kingdom but remain in the Commonwealth of Nations. Jamaica would remain a parliamentary democracy with an elected House of Representatives, an appointed Senate, and a President named by the Prime Minister, who would replace the Governor General, the representative of the monarch of the United Kingdom.

This Memorandum of Understating was tabled as the same time in September 1979 that legislation was tabled, debated, and enacted to place the management of the electoral system of Jamaica under tripartite and independent management by the creation of the Electoral Advisory Committee to be succeeded by the Electoral Commission of Jamaica. While the vision and legislation for the electoral system have been fully implement with considerable success, parting ways with the British monarchy has not happened. Before discussing why the agreement between the two major political parties in 1979 has not been implemented, let us look at what other English-speaking Caribbean countries have done on this matter.

Actions by Guyana, Trinidad and Tobago and Barbados.

The birth of the Guyanese Republic

Guyana was first to act. On February 23, 1970, by constitutional change a single chamber parliament, the National Assembly, elected Governor General Arthur Chung as President, while Prime Minister Forbes Burnham, who had the support of the majority of members of the National Assembly held executive power. By further constitutional change in 1980, Guyana instituted proportional representation, essentially eliminating constituency representation, and instituted lists of candidates submitted by political parties. Registered voters in the 1980 General Elections elected Forbes Burnham head of state with executive power.

Guyana became a republic, like the President of the United States, where the Head of State and Head of Government was one person, but with proportional representation.

The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago

Trinidad and Tobago acted next. On August 1, 1976, became a republic. However, unlike, Guyana the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago remained a parliamentary democracy. The twin-island Republic retained a two Chamber Parliament with and elected House of Representatives of constituencies, an appointed Senate, a President who was head of state, replacing the Governor General representative of the British monarch.

The President of Trinidad and Tobago is elected by an Electoral College comprised of all members of the Senate and House of Representatives. Then Governor General Ellis Clarke was unanimously elected President by the Electoral College. The term of office of the President is five years, renewable. The Constitution almost made the President the Commander of the Armed Forces. Prime Minister Dr Eric Williams, elected member of the House of Representatives, held executive power. In a nutshell, the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago became a parliamentary democracy like the United Kingdom, but with a few differences, and remained in the Commonwealth, following the precedent set by India in 1949.

The Republic of Barbados

Barbados is the third country act. At midnight on November 30, 2021, Barbados at a public ceremony began the process of parting ways with the Monarchy of the United Kingdom while remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations.

Then Governor General, Dame Sandra Mason, immediately became the Acting President, until her permanent appointment on November 30, 2022. Dame Mason conferred on the Guest of Honour of the ceremony Charles, Prince of Wales, the Order of Freedom of Barbados. Prime Minister Mia Mottley was at her oratorial best in elaborating the subtleties of constitutional change that liberated the monarch of the United Kingdom from its role as the Head of State of Barbados while remaining a member of the Commonwealth of Nations of which Queen Elizabeth II was the ceremonial head. Barbados did on November 30, 2021, what Jamaica had proposed to do in September 1979.

Why has Jamaica not acted?

The logical question that arises is what explains why Jamaica, the most populous country of the English-speaking Caribbean has not acted in a similar manner to the other larger countries of the sub-region. The best explanation is that in 1962 the framers of the Jamaican Constitution specified that the Jamaican electorate would make the final decision to replace the British Monarch as head of state, by a President, who was a Jamaican citizen. This process has two stages. First, two-thirds of the members of the House and Senate must pass legislation to amend the constitution to replace the British monarch with a President named by the Prime Minister. Second Jamaican electorate must vote Yes or No in a binding
referendum. The specific question is to replace the monarch of the United Kingdom with a President named by the Prime Minister. A referendum involves political risk, particularly for the government. So far, no Government JLP or PNP have decided to take that risk.

Why is it imperative to replace the British Monarch with a Jamaican Head of State?

There are four critical imperatives that compel this action.

The Illusion of a benefactor

First, to begin the deconstruct the delusion that there is an external benefactor or agency or organization on which Jamaicans can depend to ensure justice, chart our future, or secure the wellbeing of our nation. Reality is that we are on our own and must take responsibility for our well being and future. If we mess in our nest, we have to live in that mess. There is no external benefactor who is obliged to clean up our mess or guarantee our wellbeing and future.
Erroneously, the two greatest achievements of Jamaica, the abolition of slavery and the political independence, have been attributed in the annals of history as benefactions of British Monarchs. They are not recorded as victories of Jamaican people over British political power exercised by Prime Ministers and Ministers. The mindsets and mentalities that persist in thought, language, and actions is the illusion that there is an external godfather or godmother, or great power that put Jamaica and Jamaicans first. The British monarch as head of the Jamaican state is a vendor of this illusion.

Deconstruction of racism and classism in the society

Second, Jamaica’s parliamentary democracy is not only routed in the Westminster model of the English but equally in Akan, Igbo, and Ibibio heritage of West Africa and choices made by Jamaicans who had lived, worked, and experienced racism in Central America, Cuba, Britain, and the United States and return to build Jamaica as home. Those Jamaicans since the beginning of the 20th century were totally opposed to a President with executive power, who could easily become a despot or dictator. Even before that Jamaicans had an aversion to anyone becoming too powerful since that person could subvert personal freedom, a value cherished by all.
Both founding fathers of Jamaican democracy, National Heroes Sir Alexander Bustamante and Norman Manley, and the political parties they led were at one on the parliamentary system of democratic governance. Replacement of the British Monarch by a Jamaican President would come after political independence and would not change Jamaica’s membership of the Commonwealth of Nations. As a predominantly now-white population, parting ways with the British Monarch is critical to the deconstruction of racism and classism in the society, especially with respect to its embedded institutional and oligarchic elements, which are perpetuated by uncritically imitating and repletion the past.

Remaining in the Commonwealth

Third, there are numerous varieties of democracies among the nations of the world. Among democracies parliamentary democracies had been found to be the most stable forms of governance, especially when faced with crises that could lead to authoritarian rule. Political stability is a key factor in long-term economic viability and even prosperity, social cohesion of diverse elements, and the personal security of its citizens. Jamaica is a young country. It is on the right path in governance. Parting ways with the British Monarchy while remaining in the Commonwealth of Nations is a necessary and critical step in better understanding what is entailed in the people being sovereign and the obligation for all to be committed to the common good, care for each other, and to continue to keep company with other nations on
the same path.

Fourth, whether deliberately or not, the practice of Prime Ministers of Jamaica in naming Governors General over the 60 years since 1962, and not limiting their tenure of office to changes of governments, has produced Governors Generals who have been symbols of Jamaican identity, sources enabling political stability, statemen possessed of statecraft, and sometimes of Solomonic wisdom. They have performed the ceremonial functions of the state with great dignity, decorum, and inclusion. Over the sixty years Jamaica has had five Governors General with an average stay in office of twelve years.

They have emerged from backgrounds of partisan politics, academia, or religion all fives Governors General have invalidated any arguments that could be put forward that we cannot find from among us citizens of the caliber to be Head of State comparable to the British monarch.

This leads to the question: What is the essence is the Monarch of the United Kingdom?

The Monarch of the United Kingdom is:

• The symbol of British identity bequeathed by the vast majority of people of England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland. The British Anthem says it all. The British Anthem is the collective prayer of the British people for divine preservation of their Queen or King. The first verse is so well known as not to warrant repetition.

However, of its five verses the Fourth and Fifth Verses are the most earnest pleas.

From every latent foe,
From the assassins blow,
God save the King!
O’er his thine arm extend,
For Britain’s sake defend,
Our father, prince, and friend,
God save the King!
Thy choicest gifts in store,
On him be pleased to pour,
Long may he reign!
May he defend our laws,
And ever give us cause,
To sing with heart and voice,
God save the King!

• The source of political stability that stands above the fray of contests for state power within and between political factions. The Queen or King preserves national unity and solidarity despite changes of governments, prime ministers, ministers, and military leadership which often involve intrigue, acrimony, bitterness, and divisiveness. The monarchy is the glue that keeps the nation whole despite differences, disagreements, divisions, and diversity on multiply levels.
• The seat of statesmanship which requires schooling and experience in statecraft, the practice of diplomacy, the cultivation of wisdom in human affairs, and the self- discipline to adjust to and articulate what is best for the wholeness of British society.
• The scepter of the sovereignty of the people not by power or force but by pomp, pageantry, and ceremony designed to elicit respect and deference from all including the Prime Minister who holds the awesome executive powers of the state. The separation of headship of the state from the execution of state power, deters elevation of Prime Ministers to deity, inhibits autocracy, provides the opportunity to reconsider decisions based on wise advice, and civilizes society by focusing the national anthem, flag, and pledge on the symbol of identity and belonging and not the persona of political power.

How did the ceremonial United Kingdom Monarchy come to be?

The short answer is that this happened by conflict, contention and back and forth over approximately 800 years. In 1066 Normans of northern France conquered England to rule and drag it into the mainstream of Europe. William the Conqueror practiced the unfettered right of kings to rule and established the feudal system of governance through land given to barons, earls, abbots, and bishops. Outraged by the conduct of King John in 1215 barons, earls, abbots, and bishops demanded certain rights and liberties of Englishmen which King John agreed to in writing, Magna Carta.

House Of Lords

One hundred and seven years later in 1322 the warrior aristocracy of land and prelates of the Church formed the House of Lords. It passed statutes on its own authority and demanded royal assent.

House of Commons

Just over fifty years later, in 1376, the House of Commons came into being when commoners, that is knights of shires and lesser clergy, demanded accountability of the King on the matter of expenditures financed through taxation. For the next 270 odd years there were ebbs and flows in the contest for primacy between the Monarch, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons.

The Ceremonial role of the Monarchy

The execution of King Charles 1 on January 30, 1649 settled the matter that the King is subject to Parliament, that is, the Houses of Lords and Commons. By 1832 the Prime Minister, not the King, appointed members to the House of Lords. In 1867 The House of Commons gained primacy over the House of Lords in 1867, during the reign of Queen Victoria. The Prime Minister, that is, the member of the House of Commons, who enjoyed the support of the majority of members elected by voters, exercised executive power.

The monarch had been stripped of the executive powers of the state, but continued as the Head of
State regaled with all the pomp, pageantry, deference, and customs that had been practiced for centuries. Power had been turned on its head. Sovereignty rested with the people with the monarch being the symbol of that power.

THE TIME HAS COME FOR THE JAMAICAN HEAD OF STATE

The symbol of the sovereignty of the Jamaican people and of Jamaican identity and source of political stability must be a Jamaican citizen. The time has come for politicians and people to required by the Jamaican Constitution. Two thirds of the member of the House of Representatives and the Senate, separately, must pass legislation to replace the Monarch of the United Kingdom with a Jamaican citizen as Head of State and the electoral must vote in a binding referendum must vote ‘Yes’ by simple majority. In the final analysis is it’s the people, by action of the electorate, that is sovereign.