A race to the bottom.

[ReggaeMike]

The only way to curb that culture is ................?

School. Civic education (when was the last time we had proper civic education in schools and nurseries?).

It starts at school and at home. Not in the constitution. The constitution can only work if the culture allows it to and often times constitutions will be changed to reflect the culture, not vice versa. For instance Prohibition in the US came after culturally enough people agreed with the idea and then it got repealed when again, enough people (culturally) were opposed to the idea. Prohibition didn't make or force people to become sober/non-alcoholic.

[Gamma]

yes X how? constitutional reform will NOT do it and those in positions of power will not relinquish it what options are we left with?

a third party? if that third party is filled with persons who were denied their turn at the trough, what do you think will happen if they get their turn at the trough?

[Don1]

The non-Mestminster models fare even WORSE on average. Look around the planet and gather the evidence.

Its the PEOPLE, not the system that matters (primarily). Though the system should ideally match the people it serves.

exactly!

Reforms are necessary...but ultimately success or failure is 90% reliant on the human element.

[Sir X]

It starts with the constitution , how we educate ourselves is a different matter.

Education should also play a crucial role.So when the culture changes for better or worse the people will be able to voice thier opinions through a constitutional vote by MPs that have true voter representation.

Seperate the two.

[Sir X]

Well its a peacefull option , if all fails then its by the bullet.Right now we are headed for a bullet solution , or a bloody revolution in 10 years if we cannot fix this madness peacefully.

[Don1]

I would hate to imagine any government of Jamaica run by the current set of politicians using the US system of governance. Why? Because like the Westminster system, the US presidential system depends a lot on simple honour to keep it ticking. A LOT of stuff is not spelt out in the US Constitution and US Presidents have immense power. That can at times be checked by Congress, especially when Congress has a majority from the opposing party (so Democratic President, Republican Congress or vice versa). I can't imagine with Jamaica's current tribalist mindset, that anything remotely similar would happen here. It would simply be a PNP President and a completely pliant PNP Parliament or a JLP President and a completely pliant JLP Parliament.

There are FAR more checks and balances on government power in the US style republican system than in Jamaica's constitutional monarchy.

Jamaican prime ministers are the faux "democratic" version of kings.... well in PJs case make that queen

[Islandman]

Actually I missed it!

It wasn''t thick enough, or maybe I am too thick? LOL!

[Don1]

yes X how? constitutional reform will NOT do it and those in positions of power will not relinquish it what options are we left with?

a third party? if that third party is filled with persons who were denied their turn at the trough, what do you think will happen if they get their turn at the trough?

we need people from the outside to intervene.... preferably our own people

[ReggaeMike]

Corruption is a part of the political process is it not

It's not supposed to be. That is why it is called "corruption" because it corrupts the normal political process (or what in theory is supposed to be the normal political process). If corruption is considered part of the political process, it is no longer corruption but simply "business".

every political system fights this cancer , why do we see it as an excuse not to do nothing.

Fact is we have a corrupt culture and its growing in Jamaica, every social aspect of our society screams this out every day , what do we do about it.

Except even changing the system will not change the corrupt culture in Jamaica. We need to change the culture. Aiming at the system is simply gunning for the more exposed and supposedly easier target while completely missing the root cause of why the system has grown corrupted in the first place.

Take Thailand. Since 1932 they have had 17 constitutions. That's right! Seventeen! And they have had four of them since 1990. That's an average of 1 constitution every 4 years overall and 1 every 5 years in the last couple of decades. Yet where is Thailand today after so many changes? Well there angry demonstrators in red shirts facing off against the army in the centre of the capital which is basically business as usual. Thailand is not an example of a country where democracy is flourishing and stable. It is an example of where people don't let governments roll over them (well not all the time), but that is something completely different from stable democracy. You can have that in both democracy and anarchy.

Leave the current system in place , give stats of failed parliments and democratic governments as an exuse not to do anything?

I wouldn't say not do anything, but rather do something that will have long term benefits. Say the system was changed today with no changes in civic education...what will happen in a generation or two when the current cohort of students who have had little or no civic education end up becoming the leaders of tomorrow? If they have no sense of civic duty or pride they will display none and will certainly have no interest in promulgating civic education since they wouldn't the value of it. So then the generations that follow will likewise have no sense of civic duty.

However if civic education was done on a wide scale today with the children and teenagers and adults then in the years to come, those children will become leaders with a sense of civic and moral pride and will for the most part not be tempted into the kind of things the current lot is tempted into now and our current system of governance will seem as successful as Barbados (incidentally Barbados spends far more education proportionally than Jamaica does, something like double the amount and they've never joked around with the education budget no matter which party was in power). It's the same basic principle behind religions and morality - if you don't teach children about morality then they will display skewed values of religion as many "protestants" and "catholics" did in Northern Ireland and as many "muslim" jihadists do today. Just because Catholics and Protestants were busy bombing and gunning down each other in Northern Ireland in clear violation of "thou shalt not kill" doesn't mean Christianity is a flawed system and needs replacing in Northern Ireland, it simply means that the children in Northern Ireland need to be guided on a the right path so they don't end up like some of their hate-filled, murderous elders.

[Sir X]

Like it or not in your political correct world its part of the process, always was , always will be and so are constitutional laws and ammendments to fight it .

Its not supposed to be , like I am not supposed to be living in NY , it happened and is happening now deal with it .

How do you know as a fact that changing the system will not bring about change ?

Then you throw out we need to change the culture without giving examples as how to change the culture ,as the solution ?

How do you change a corrupt , nepotistic , narco political terroristic culture without changing the constitution (THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND )

Thanks for the stats of Thailand !

[ReggaeMike]

There are FAR more checks and balances on government power in the US style republican system than in Jamaica's constitutional monarchy.

Jamaican prime ministers are the faux "democratic" version of kings.... well in PJs case make that queen

Except in the US style republican system they depend a lot on having opposing parties occupy the White House and the Congress.

Here's an excellent guide to what I'm talking about:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Between 1945 and 2009 (64 years) there were only 10 instances (20 years) when a single party had the presidency and majorities in the Senate and House.

In addition in the US there is a culture of independence even within the parties so that it is quite possible to get some Republicans voting on a bill that is supported by a majority of Democrats and vice versa (and it is why terms such as "Blue Dog" Democrats and the "Republican Main Street Partnership" can even come about).

Take those away and the US system would have the potential to quickly descend into something akin to those Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s (which tellingly almost always used modified forms of the US system but without the independence of thought by purging members who didn't go along with the changes that eventually led to complete dictatorship). Even one of the most progressive constitutions ever (Germany's 1920s constitution which even mandated that every university graduate receive a copy of the constitution upon graduation) was undone a concerted group intent on hijacking it once they controlled all the branches of government and managed to intimidate or sideline any potential opposition in the legislature.

[Don1]

Except in the US style republican system they depend a lot on having opposing parties occupy the White House and the Congress.

Here's an excellent guide to what I'm talking about:

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgov...division_2.htm

Between 1945 and 2009 (64 years) there were only 10 instances (20 years) when a single party had the presidency and majorities in the Senate and House.

In addition in the US there is a culture of independence even within the parties so that it is quite possible to get some Republicans voting on a bill that is supported by a majority of Democrats and vice versa (and it is why terms such as "Blue Dog" Democrats and the "Republican Main Street Partnership" can even come about).

Take those away and the US system would have the potential to quickly descend into something akin to those Latin American dictatorships of the 1970s and 1980s (which tellingly almost always used modified forms of the US system but without the independence of thought by purging members who didn't go along with the changes that eventually led to complete dictatorship). Even one of the most progressive constitutions ever (Germany's 1920s constitution which even mandated that every university graduate receive a copy of the constitution upon graduation) was undone a concerted group intent on hijacking it once they controlled all the branches of government and managed to intimidate or sideline any potential opposition in the legislature.

A prime minister can decide WHEN elections are held and who runs as parliamentary representatives of his party...because the PM is also FORMALLY head of the party.

Therein lies examples of a democratic king.... US presidents can only dream of such power

[ReggaeMike]

Like it or not in your political correct world its part of the process, always was , always will be and so are constitutional laws and ammendments to fight it .

Its not supposed to be , like I am not supposed to be living in NY , it happened and is happening now deal with it .

Okay, I don't think you got fully what I was saying.

I was saying that it isn't supposed to be there and we sell ourselves short by assuming it will be there all the time and in an ever pervading state. Certainly corruption will always exist, BUT it doesn't have to exist to the extent that the state no longer functions. If it does and if we are to assume it does, then it means Jamaica is no longer fit for self-government and may never have been fit for it.

How do you know as a fact that changing the system will not bring about change ?

The examples I cited. Thailand (17 constitutions and counting and still have political chaos). Prohibition in the US. If you want another example there is also Kenya which after electoral violence changed it's constitution only to have the US suspend aid years later due to rampant corruption because the PEOPLE in the system haven't changed. Same corrupt people, different system.

EDIT: Think about it like this. Corruption is like a parasitic plant, a creeper maybe. The system of governance is like a fruit tree, maybe a pear tree. If you kill the pear tree and uproot the pear tree and cut off the vines of the creeper but leave the creeper roots intact then any new tree (say a breadfruit tree) that you plant WILL eventually be overtaken by the creeper as it grows back. Nobody really expects to kill weeds without getting at their roots and breaking corruption will never really be effective unless it takes into account the roots of corruption.

Then you throw out we need to chage the culture without giving examples as how to change the culture ,as the solution ?

I already gave examples. I said civic education is the key. If children aren't taught to respect others and to respect institutions and to have morals then they won't have morals and they won't respect others and won't respect institutions. If you want more specific examples I would say some kind of mentorship programme where children from all walks of life are taken in for free and given a proper civic education.

How do you change a corrupt , nepotistic , narco political terroristic culture without changing the constitution (THE SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND )

By changing the root of the culture. Kill the root and the rest dies naturally. The root of the culture is the corruption and negligence of children's education.

Thanks for the stats of Thailand !

No problem.

[Sir X]

I got you loud and clear , lets just say I agree with all what you have said in that education must play a role ,where we disagree is I believe constitutional reform is a must.

No constitution is written in stone it can be changed, ammended and dissolved so new and improved ones can be etched out , in some cases like you have given poor ones.

Its a chance I believe we have to take , by the box or bullet that day is fast approaching.

[ReggaeMike]

I got you loud and clear , lets just say I agree with all what you have said in that education must play a role ,where we disagree is I believe constitutional reform is a must.

No constitution is written in stone it can be changed, ammended and dissolved so new and improved ones can be etched out , in some cases like you have given poor ones.

Its a chance I believe we have to take , by the box or bullet that day is fast approaching.

Cool. What I've been saying though is that constitutional reform is a secondary priority. Once civic education has produced a population that is geared towards respecting rules and rights then the ideal constitution for that population can be settled upon.

For instance someone on the forum said a Ghanaian solution is what is needed for Jamaica, but Ghana only reached it's current state after years of turmoil which included military government. However Ghana is still for the most ranked below Mauritius in terms of economic performance and governance and Mauritius until 1992 had a constitution very, very similar to our own and even after 1992 the only real change has been replacing the Queen and Governor-General with a President (same powers as before, just different title basically). Mauritius is actually a better model for Jamaica than Ghana as Mauritius is:

1. an island

2. had an economy heavily dependent on sugarcane

3. experienced slavery

4. started out with a constitution very similar to our own.

EDIT: So having had a few thoughts here is what I think would be necessary:

1. Widespread civic education programme so that people can understand the need for respecting rights and rules and institutions and so they can understand their part in the political process and simply understand the political process.

2. Then and only then should there be changes in the constitution (otherwise the changes will be wasted on this corrupt lot) including:

a) Restricting candidates to only representing constituencies in which they actually live for more than 6 months out of the year.

b) Changing constituency borders/shapes every 10 years with the changes being major changes and basically random changes, the only stipulation being that the constituencies must be of equal population or nearly so.

c) Have a recall initiative like in California (which by the way isn't in many systems around the world) so that if a given percentage of a constituencies voters (say 10% or maybe 20%) send in a signed petition then a new by-election would be held for the MP that has been recalled.

d) Throw in proportional representation along the New Zealander lines with some seats contested under first-past-the-post and the remainders of seats being filled out based on the overall proportion of the vote that each party received (this way some MPs will still have to be accountable to a specific set of people and will have to look after local affairs, so no area can really claim it has been neglected since every area would have an MP who could be voted out if they don't do a good job)

e) ban campaigning on behalf of others (as is done in Cuba apparently), except for very non-specific, general party campaigns and have the result of the ban being disqualification for representation if anyone flouts it. I advocate this one because during the last election both Golding and Simpson-Miller apparently went to other constituencies and campaigned on behalf of the candidates to the effect that a vote for the candidates in their parties amounts to a vote for them. That is a corruption of the system. People should choose who they think best represents them, not who will likely support some other candidate who was chosen on the basis of who best represents some other constituency. This would hopefully put a lid on some of the campaign madness. So if someone wants to campaign that should be fine. If his or her party wants to support them materially with posters, buttons, meetings, speaking-events/rallies etc and maybe some speakers who are not themselves candidates for other constituencies then that should be fine too. Anything else and it would be crossing the line.