RBSC

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Gleaner EDITORIAL - How to avoid a snap election

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Gleaner EDITORIAL - How to avoid a snap election

    EDITORIAL - How to avoid a snap election
    published: Monday | April 21, 2008



    THERE ARE many people in the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) who are urging Prime Minister Golding to call a snap general election as a way around the court's ruling on the ineligibility of Daryl Vaz, because of his dual citizenship, to sit in Parliament. They hope to exploit the perceived disarray in the Opposition People's National Party (PNP) to expand the JLP's thin 32-28 majority in the House. It is a strategy that may or may not work.

    This newspaper, as we said in the immediate aftermath of the ruling by Chief Justice Zaila McCalla - which may be subject to appeal - remains opposed to an election at this time. A political campaign, so soon after last September's general election would be disruptive and not be in the best interest of Jamaica. So, if the JLP decides to 'go to the people' - as politicians like to say when wanting to sound high-minded - and wins, it may well lose the larger plot by undermining its longer-term fortunes.

    Dual citizenship
    In that regard, we saw a window of opportunity for a creative way out in Opposition Leader Portia Simpson Miller's intervention in the Budget Debate last week - an aperture that Mr Golding should attempt to pry fully open.

    Daryl Vaz won the seat as the MP for West Portland in last September's vote, but his election was challenged in the courts by his PNP rival Abe Dabdoub as a breach of Section 40 (2) (a) of the Constitution that precludes a person who, "by his own act", owes "allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state". Mr Vaz is also an American citizen.

    Another JLP member of parliament, Shahine Robinson, is being similarly challenged, and a third, Gregory Mair, against whom the same claim was being made, may not have to answer, only because court documents were inappropriately served. At least one PNP MP appears to have been in a similar position up to the time of nomination, which raises interesting legal questions about his status in the House. Perhaps others are affected.

    Serious debate, review needed
    Clearly, this is a section of our Constitution that demands serious debate and review, especially in the context of our promotion of the concept of a greater Jamaica, championed by this newspaper, and the embrace of the diaspora. On the face of it, it makes little sense to preclude such persons, who contribute so much, from the Parliament - except perhaps for the job of prime minister.

    But on the more immediate political question, while Mr Golding may be tempted to go to a poll, he is well aware that elections in Jamaica tend not only to bring social tension - and even violence - but economic paralysis. Mr Golding, in Jamaica's current circumstance, can afford neither.

    Chief Justice McCalla says that there should be a by-election in West Portland, although Mr Dabdoub argues that he should have been awarded the seat and has appealed.

    Test her resolve
    The JLP would win the seats vacated by Vaz and Robinson and would still be in a position to govern. But even if Mr Dabdoub wins at appeal, there are solutions that would satisfy both the political imperatives and the constitution, which is what we understood Mrs Simpson Miller to be saying when she told Parliament: "The Opposition stands ready to respond in a constructive dialogue with the Government to ensure that the best interest of the country is protected."

    Mr Golding should test that resolve. We hope Mrs Simpson Miller is serious.
    The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

  • #2
    Too late to be disqualified?

    ...or too late for challenges to be filed to effect ruling that conforms to what the courts have ruled to be
    a breach of Section 40 (2) (a) of the Constitution that precludes a person who, "by his own act", owes "allegiance, obedience or adherence to a foreign power or state"
    ????

    I am thinking - If the Constitution has been breached (violated)...it has been...there must be in that same Constitution provision(s) to effect compliance with same...that is means of rectifying the breach? What would be the point of having a Constitution which does not have provisions on process or processes to correct breaches/bring back conforminity?

    Somehow I do not think our Constitution has not the provisions to effect 'corrections' of breaches. Have never read our constitution...but I just cannot see our framers not thinking/saying, 'gentlemen let's include provisions to deal with any eventuality outside of those that come to mind'...and not adding the 'any other matters' type footnote at each and every place good sense would demand 'such type footnote'?
    "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has."

    Comment

    Working...
    X