JAMAICA | Descendants Of Enslavers: Beam In Whose Eyes?

KINGSTON, December 1, 2024 - With Mark Golding leading one of the political parties seeking to hold the reins of power, potentially becoming the head of government, it was perhaps inescapable that his position as a "descendant of the enslavers", whether true or false, would be raised as an issue in the forthcoming national elections.

The issue has loomed, with the projected messages wrapped up in 'Markie British' and 'Massa Mark', for example, sent far and wide across the land.

Without apology, it has been placed squarely as a campaign issue by two Jamaica Labour Party members of parliament in these terms: Is it appropriate for a descendant of enslavers to be allowed to rule over those of the enslaved who make up the majority of Jamaica's citizenry?

There is nothing inappropriate in embarking upon such a discussion. The discourse can generate rich benefits provided a mature and culturally-aware approach is embraced.

However, it is not an issue to be trifled with. Lasting deleterious effects can ensue from a shallow, injudicious route being pursued by thoughtlessly casting that question onto the provocative platform of racism - "the White Englishman running Jamaica".

The required mature approach must start with a proper understanding and grasp of "what is in place".

The first step must be an honest examination of whether there is any glaring beam that our leaders who are descendants of slaves in the governing party have blatantly refused to remove from their own eyes.

There has to be sober reflection as to how a confused Jamaica Labour Party leadership does not even appreciate that, years ago, they memorably endorsed and sanctioned "Englishmen running Jamaica".

In our government structure, the paths of the descendants of enslavers and enslaved intersect at the apex of the system.

Though King Charles III, remains serenely as Jamaica's head of state, his advisors, the judges of his court, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, descendants of enslavers, occupy the pinnacle of the branch of government that dispenses justice.

On the matter of "running Jamaica", Englishmen, descendants of slave masters, have the ultimate say on the interpretation of our Constitution and the laws passed by members of our Legislature, overwhelmingly descendants of slaves.

That court of His Majesty, himself descended from traders in slaves, sitting in London, inaccessible to the vast majority of our citizens, has the final word on the guilt or innocence of our descendants of slaves.

Not even a prime minister has any such power!

English judges have the final word on the decisions of our judges and our juries, among the awesome non-transferable powers which, in our machinery of government, have always been exercisable by former enslavers and their descendants.

Changes to be made to those constitutional arrangements fall exclusively to the political parties to find common ground for a consensual special majority vote to be taken in the Legislature.

The courts have declared that the head of the Jamaica Labour Party, as Opposition Leader, along with some in his present administration, committed an unpardonable breach of our Constitution to ensure that Englishmen, progeny of slave masters, would continue to hold those powers, ruling over us.

They have not repented, and are therefore precluded from suggesting otherwise to the electorate!

That change would also have served for caring legislators to grant to connected descendants of the enslaved the privilege of access to their final court, after near two hundred years.

Irony of ironies: the Jamaica Labour Party leadership which has unashamedly withheld support from that change being effected - Mark Golding differs totally - now seeks to have those whom they have long denied access to their court of last resort, vote against "the White Englishman running Jamaica".

Mature thinking is, far too often, distant from decisions taken by political parties, satisfying their own selfish ends, brushing aside what is in the best interests of the people and institutions of society.

Notably, a representative of the Jamaica Labour Party frankly admitted, as if there was any doubt, that the reason for placing this issue on the campaign agenda is that they consider that "the race card" had been played against their former leader, Edward Seaga.

Since they perceive that to have been inappropriate and unfair, why move to perpetuate such a wrong, following the thoroughly depressing, unhelpful tit-for-tat path which has been openly pursued by both political parties?

Surely, the aim of the campaign ought to be for a judgement to be made by the electorate concerning which set of policies projected by the political parties anchors their decision on who is best suited for "running Jamaica".

So, should the People's National Party manifesto propose superior, elevating policy pursuits, should the electorate vote in favour of the Jamaica Labour Party? Makes sense?

Months ago, it was announced from George William Gordon House that the prime minister would "in short order" address the issue of the descendants of enslavers occupying the pinnacle of the Judiciary arm of our government.

That address has not taken place. It was expected to be directed at removing from his eyes and those in his leadership, the dreadful beam - a clear reflection from that thoughtless historic constitutional breach - which indifferently denies their kindred descendants of slaves unhindered access to a court of last resort.

In like manner, will we never be privileged to hear from our head of government, the leader of the ruling Jamaica Labour Party concerning the incendiary racist projections coming from his party colleagues?

Certainly, a meaningful, mature rebuke is what is required and expected from a wise and just leader!

AJ NICHOLSON