Tweet
Dons before Parliament?
published: Sunday | September 28, 2008
Martin Henry, Contributor
Yes! horror of horrors to Senator K.D. Knight and others, let the dons appear - if they will! But they haven't got a lot of time. The joint select committee of Parliament considering the Government's six anti-crime bills, with as much (indecent) haste as has ever been seen in a legislatively lethargic Parliament, holds its final of four meetings Tuesday coming. The purpose of joint select committees of Parliament is to allow citizens an opportunity to appear before the legislature to make their voices heard on contemplated legislation. Very few appear. And the behaviour of this joint select committee has done little to inspire more citizens to appear before Parliament.
Quite apart from the childish squabble of members, attacking citizens who do appear - as human rights lawyer David Batts was attacked last Tuesday - cannot be the way to go. Batts' great sin was to urge parliamentarians to vote on the bills by conscience and not according to party directives. Righteous indignation overpowered the members of the committee who, frothing at the mouth, leaped on the hapless citizen. They refused to continue [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]hearing[/COLOR][/COLOR] him unless he recanted and apologised.
The self-righteous members should explain to the dissed Jamaican public what is the purpose of their party whips. From Wikipedia, "Whip is a role in party-based politics whose primary purpose is to ensure control of the formal decision-making process in a parliamentary legislature." The maximum strength of the whip is the three-line whip: A strict instruction to attend and vote in a particular way, breach of which could have serious consequences.
Party whips
Party whips everywhere in the 'democratic' world are the nemesis of conscience votes. And Pearnel Charles is simply being pompous when he declared that "no party leader can dictate my conscience, none has, and none will".
If lawyer Batts, an upstanding citizen, received such a tracing for his indiscreet statement of a generally truthful point, what is likely to happen to Mr Don should he appear before the committee offering an explanation of his origins and position in the tawdry politics of the country and how this feeds crime?
Mr Don is not just a mobiliser of votes, but is an elector himself. According to the Constitution [Section 37], a "person shall be qualified to be registered as an elector for elections to the House of Representatives" if he is a Jamaican citizen resident in Jamaica or a commonwealth citizen who has been resident in Jamaica for at least 12 months before registration, both categories having attained the prescribed age, now 18.
Let us be careful of denying citizens/electors the right to appear before their Parliament. A potential elector is only disqualified if he is a convicted criminal, is certified insane, or holds an electoral office which has a bar on it. Dons wanting to appear before Parliament could be judged insane. So could those wishing to bar them. By the way, the Constitution specifically [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]singles[/COLOR][/COLOR] out conviction for electoral fraud as barring persons from registration as electors [37 (2) (b)]. My, my! A number of dons in various places could be in big trouble.
The Constitution is very generous about who can be a member of Parliament. Someone cannot be if they owe allegiance to a foreign power, holds a public-service office, is a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, or is a member of a defence force. He or she is not electable if bankrupt, insane, has been convicted of electoral fraud, or is a engaged in a business providing services to the Government and failing to disclose it. But he or she can be a member of Parliament while in prison in any part of the Commonwealth, providing the sentence does not exceed six months and he or she has not been sentenced to death.
prison time
Marcus Garvey contested the 1929 elections for the Legislative Council from the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Spanish[/COLOR][/COLOR] Town District Prison to which he was sentenced for three months for supposedly libelling the judiciary in the manifesto of his party. And former parliamentarians, including at least one [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Cabinet[/COLOR][/COLOR] minister, have done prison time. A former minister of state is now before the courts on criminal charges while continuing to serve as an MP. Parliamentarians cannot, however, be served summonses or arrested while at Parliament.
If all dons are to be excluded from Parliament, a number of parliamentary seats could fall vacant. On page 10 of the 1997 Report of the National Committee on Political Tribalism we find the following, which we hope the committee will not roughly dismiss as it did David Batts' unwelcome comment: "There is a link between garrison forces and the party's [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]political [COLOR=orange! important]leadership[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] which provides two functions:
(i) It provides the main conduit for accessing and distributing scarce benefits. The top rankings [i.e. dons] become the main brokers between the members of Parliament and the local communities.
(ii) In a transactional sense, the Member of Parliament is sure of retaining his territorial support, while the ranking [i.e. dons] are able to acquire wealth and local power as well as protection from the forces of law and order."
This was from a submission made to the P.J. Patterson-convened committee by Barry Chevannes. The committee then noted: "We accept this as a correct description of the relationship between the members of Parliament [and] certain garrison communities." Dons have won their independence, we are now told. Whether politicians have won theirs is another matter.
inner-city representation
Citizens in inner-city communities, already bearing the brunt of security forces excesses and the inefficiencies of the justice system over some four decades of special measures for fighting crime, are quite concerned about the implications for them of the new measures. Who better to appear before committee for them than their community leaders?
Dons, like the country's special crime situation, were made, not born. If by some wild chance any of these citizens want to exercise their right to make a contribution before Parliament for finding solutions, then by all means. Even convicted criminals, who in the general scheme of things may know more about crime and its cure than politicians frothing over conscience votes, should be brought in from Her Majesty's correctional facilities. Martin Henry is a communications consultant. Feedback may be sent to medhen@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
published: Sunday | September 28, 2008
Martin Henry, Contributor
Yes! horror of horrors to Senator K.D. Knight and others, let the dons appear - if they will! But they haven't got a lot of time. The joint select committee of Parliament considering the Government's six anti-crime bills, with as much (indecent) haste as has ever been seen in a legislatively lethargic Parliament, holds its final of four meetings Tuesday coming. The purpose of joint select committees of Parliament is to allow citizens an opportunity to appear before the legislature to make their voices heard on contemplated legislation. Very few appear. And the behaviour of this joint select committee has done little to inspire more citizens to appear before Parliament.
Quite apart from the childish squabble of members, attacking citizens who do appear - as human rights lawyer David Batts was attacked last Tuesday - cannot be the way to go. Batts' great sin was to urge parliamentarians to vote on the bills by conscience and not according to party directives. Righteous indignation overpowered the members of the committee who, frothing at the mouth, leaped on the hapless citizen. They refused to continue [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]hearing[/COLOR][/COLOR] him unless he recanted and apologised.
The self-righteous members should explain to the dissed Jamaican public what is the purpose of their party whips. From Wikipedia, "Whip is a role in party-based politics whose primary purpose is to ensure control of the formal decision-making process in a parliamentary legislature." The maximum strength of the whip is the three-line whip: A strict instruction to attend and vote in a particular way, breach of which could have serious consequences.
Party whips
Party whips everywhere in the 'democratic' world are the nemesis of conscience votes. And Pearnel Charles is simply being pompous when he declared that "no party leader can dictate my conscience, none has, and none will".
If lawyer Batts, an upstanding citizen, received such a tracing for his indiscreet statement of a generally truthful point, what is likely to happen to Mr Don should he appear before the committee offering an explanation of his origins and position in the tawdry politics of the country and how this feeds crime?
Mr Don is not just a mobiliser of votes, but is an elector himself. According to the Constitution [Section 37], a "person shall be qualified to be registered as an elector for elections to the House of Representatives" if he is a Jamaican citizen resident in Jamaica or a commonwealth citizen who has been resident in Jamaica for at least 12 months before registration, both categories having attained the prescribed age, now 18.
Let us be careful of denying citizens/electors the right to appear before their Parliament. A potential elector is only disqualified if he is a convicted criminal, is certified insane, or holds an electoral office which has a bar on it. Dons wanting to appear before Parliament could be judged insane. So could those wishing to bar them. By the way, the Constitution specifically [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]singles[/COLOR][/COLOR] out conviction for electoral fraud as barring persons from registration as electors [37 (2) (b)]. My, my! A number of dons in various places could be in big trouble.
The Constitution is very generous about who can be a member of Parliament. Someone cannot be if they owe allegiance to a foreign power, holds a public-service office, is a judge of the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeal, or is a member of a defence force. He or she is not electable if bankrupt, insane, has been convicted of electoral fraud, or is a engaged in a business providing services to the Government and failing to disclose it. But he or she can be a member of Parliament while in prison in any part of the Commonwealth, providing the sentence does not exceed six months and he or she has not been sentenced to death.
prison time
Marcus Garvey contested the 1929 elections for the Legislative Council from the [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Spanish[/COLOR][/COLOR] Town District Prison to which he was sentenced for three months for supposedly libelling the judiciary in the manifesto of his party. And former parliamentarians, including at least one [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]Cabinet[/COLOR][/COLOR] minister, have done prison time. A former minister of state is now before the courts on criminal charges while continuing to serve as an MP. Parliamentarians cannot, however, be served summonses or arrested while at Parliament.
If all dons are to be excluded from Parliament, a number of parliamentary seats could fall vacant. On page 10 of the 1997 Report of the National Committee on Political Tribalism we find the following, which we hope the committee will not roughly dismiss as it did David Batts' unwelcome comment: "There is a link between garrison forces and the party's [COLOR=orange! important][COLOR=orange! important]political [COLOR=orange! important]leadership[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR] which provides two functions:
(i) It provides the main conduit for accessing and distributing scarce benefits. The top rankings [i.e. dons] become the main brokers between the members of Parliament and the local communities.
(ii) In a transactional sense, the Member of Parliament is sure of retaining his territorial support, while the ranking [i.e. dons] are able to acquire wealth and local power as well as protection from the forces of law and order."
This was from a submission made to the P.J. Patterson-convened committee by Barry Chevannes. The committee then noted: "We accept this as a correct description of the relationship between the members of Parliament [and] certain garrison communities." Dons have won their independence, we are now told. Whether politicians have won theirs is another matter.
inner-city representation
Citizens in inner-city communities, already bearing the brunt of security forces excesses and the inefficiencies of the justice system over some four decades of special measures for fighting crime, are quite concerned about the implications for them of the new measures. Who better to appear before committee for them than their community leaders?
Dons, like the country's special crime situation, were made, not born. If by some wild chance any of these citizens want to exercise their right to make a contribution before Parliament for finding solutions, then by all means. Even convicted criminals, who in the general scheme of things may know more about crime and its cure than politicians frothing over conscience votes, should be brought in from Her Majesty's correctional facilities. Martin Henry is a communications consultant. Feedback may be sent to medhen@gmail.com or columns@gleanerjm.com.
Comment