JAMAICA | Democratic Erosion: Why Peter Espeut's Warning About JLP's Third Term Should Alarm Every Jamaican

Peter Espeut's devastating analysis reveals how the JLP's constitutional changes mirror authoritarian playbooks worldwide

MONTEGO BAY, Jamaica, August 23, 2025 - When sociologist Peter Espeut penned his blistering analysis in Thursday's Gleaner, he delivered more than political commentary—he issued a democratic emergency alert.

His premise was deceptively simple: the Jamaica Labour Party hasn't released their 2025 manifesto because "their record over the last decade clearly indicates the direction they are going." 

What Espeut then laid bare was a chilling inventory of democratic erosion that should make every Jamaican reach for their constitution and demand answers.

Ten days after announcing the September 3rd election date, the JLP still had no manifesto—a silence that Espeut interpreted not as oversight, but as arrogance. They believe their actions speak loudly enough. Unfortunately for Jamaican democracy, he's right.

The Concentration of Power: A Constitutional Coup in Plain Sight

Espeut's most alarming revelation centers on the JLP's proposed constitutional changes that would fundamentally alter Jamaica's balance of power. Under the Constitution (Amendment) (Republic) Act 2024, "the Prime Minister ultimately shall determine who shall become the President of Jamaica without needing to consult anyone."

This isn't merely about ceremonial roles—it's about mathematical control of democratic institutions.

Here's the arithmetic of authoritarianism: the proposed republic would have 27 senators—15 nominated by the Prime Minister, nine by the Opposition Leader, and three by the President.

Since the President would be the Prime Minister's choice, those three presidential nominees would reliably vote with the government's 15, creating an automatic 18-vote bloc.

In a 27-member senate, that's a permanent two-thirds majority—the exact threshold needed to amend Jamaica's entrenched constitutional provisions.

"This new arrangement effectively neuters the opposition, and concentrates power in the hands of the Prime Minister," Espeut warns. The Opposition would be reduced to theatrical irrelevance, their nine votes forever insufficient to block constitutional changes.

Democracy requires more than elections; it demands meaningful opposition participation. The JLP's proposed system would eliminate that requirement forever.

This mechanism mirrors techniques used by elected authoritarians worldwide: capture institutions legally, then use those captured institutions to entrench power permanently. It's not a coup—it's constitutional strangulation.

Dismantling Democratic Safeguards: The Systematic Erosion

Espeut's inventory reads like a textbook case of institutional capture. The JLP has "already neutered the Political Ombudsman" and plans to continue this "happy provision." They're committed to "absolute secrecy with respect to all filings before the Integrity Commission, including absolute secrecy about who gets government contracts."

More troubling still, a re-elected JLP government "will take steps to abolish the offences of 'unexplained wealth' and 'illicit enrichment'"—laws designed to catch public officials whose assets mysteriously exceed their declared income.

They also plan to "reduce the powers of the Integrity Commission to investigate the financial affairs of family members and business associates of politicians."

Consider the implications: no transparency in government contracts, no accountability for political donations, no investigation of unexplained wealth, and weakened oversight of politicians' financial networks.

This isn't governance—it's systematically eliminating every mechanism that could expose corruption or abuse of power.

The JLP insists that "any considerations of transparency and accountability must come second to the right of politicians to privacy in their financial affairs." In what functioning democracy do politicians enjoy privacy rights superior to citizens' rights to accountable government?

The Trump Parallel: When Legal Becomes Authoritarian

The parallels to Donald Trump's approach are unmistakable and instructive. Trump didn't suspend the Constitution—he weaponized it. He packed courts, politicized justice departments, and used legal mechanisms to undermine democratic norms.

The JLP's approach follows the same playbook: use constitutional amendments and legal changes to concentrate power and eliminate accountability.

Like Trump, the JLP presents these changes as lawful and democratic—they'll hold referendums, follow procedures, respect the vote. But democracy isn't just about following procedures; it's about preserving the competitive balance that makes those procedures meaningful.

When you change the rules to ensure you always win, the game ceases to be democratic, even if you follow your own new rules perfectly.

The global pattern is clear: modern authoritarians don't seize power through tanks and coups. They win elections, then systematically dismantle the institutions that could challenge them. Hungary's Viktor Orbán, Turkey's Recep Erdoğan, and Poland's Law and Justice party all followed similar paths—legal changes that cumulatively destroy democratic competition.

Jamaica's Christian democratic tradition, built on constitutional checks and balances, faces exactly this threat. The JLP isn't proposing to abandon democracy—they're proposing to redefine it as a system where they hold permanent structural advantages.

PNP's Constitutional Defense: More Than Partisan Politics

The People's National Party's opposition to the JLP's constitutional changes isn't mere partisan obstruction—it's defending Jamaica's democratic foundation. Opposition Leader Mark Golding has insisted that constitutional changes require genuine bipartisan consensus, not the steamrolling of minority views.

Golding has raised four critical questions, including whether "the Government is not under a fundamental duty to explain in clear and unambiguous terms why it is determined to proceed in this piecemeal fashion."

The PNP's demand for comprehensive constitutional reform—including transitioning to the Caribbean Court of Justice—reflects their insistence that such fundamental changes deserve full deliberation, not rushed implementation designed to benefit one party.

Golding warns that the JLP's proposed presidential selection mechanism would "enshrine a stealthy Trojan horse mechanism in the constitution to enable the PM to appoint a president who will do his bidding," potentially putting "Jamaica in a perpetual state of emergency, all without any need for consensus with the Opposition."

The PNP's position is constitutionally sound: fundamental changes to democratic structures require broad consensus precisely because they affect the rules of political competition itself. No party should be allowed to unilaterally rewrite those rules in their favor.

The Civic Response: Constitutional Literacy as Democratic Defense

Espeut's warning—"If this can be done to a former prime minister, imagine what can be done to the average citizen"—demands more than electoral participation. It demands constitutional engagement.

Every Jamaican must get their hands on their constitution. Read it. Understand it. Know your rights and the institutions designed to protect them. The JLP is counting on public ignorance about constitutional mechanics to slip these changes past unaware citizens.

The Ministry of Education must immediately introduce comprehensive constitutional studies in schools. Students should graduate knowing how their government works, what checks and balances exist, and why institutional independence matters. Constitutional literacy isn't just civic education—it's fascism prevention.

When citizens understand how democratic institutions function, they can recognize when those institutions are under attack. When they don't, they become unwitting accomplices to their own disenfranchisement.

This is not about partisan politics—it's about preserving the democratic space in which partisan politics can occur. The JLP's proposals would transform Jamaica from a competitive democracy into a one-party-dominant system wrapped in democratic rhetoric.

The Stakes: Democracy's Last Stand

Espeut's final warning—"Let the buyer beware!"—captures the stakes perfectly. Jamaicans aren't just choosing between political parties; they're choosing between democratic governance and authoritarian drift.

The September 3rd election offers Jamaica a choice between preserving constitutional democracy and embracing constitutional authoritarianism. The difference isn't about left versus right, progressive versus conservative. It's about maintaining the institutional frameworks that allow peaceful political competition versus concentrating power in ways that make such competition meaningless.

Constitutional changes, once made, are nearly impossible to reverse. If the JLP succeeds in creating their permanent two-thirds senate majority, future elections become exercises in democratic theater—all show, no substance.

Peter Espeut has done more than identify problems; he's issued a call to democratic arms. The question now is whether Jamaicans will heed his warning.

-30-