Self-satisfying approach colts the game

THE EDITOR, Madam:

At their village in the foothills of the Bull Head Mountain, Farmer Joe and his compadres gathered for their usual libations. His, in welcoming them to his home, commented briefly on the reparations petition the Government recently lodged with the British authorities.

He was emphatic that this deeply concerns “us and our kind”, rooted in the historic change of our forbears from working tools as slaves to being declared human beings. He therefore considered it right that the gathering wish for every success to attend the mission, despite disappointment in the approach adopted by the governing party.

He asserted that “our history and our circumstance” demanded an approach to the initiative consisting of two elements, with the Government ensuring that some understanding of the process was transmitted to the public, particularly since the British and us share the same head of state and final appeal judges, who are his advisers.

Second, beyond debate, a bipartisan representation of Government and Opposition would have recorded a unified and mature approach.

Kenneth Long, the Baptist Church deacon, chimed in, reminding the gathering that when Independence, “which also deeply concerned us and our kind”, was under consideration in 1962, the teachable, mature appearance of unity projected by Government and Opposition together making their presentation to the British authorities in London remains an enduring, uplifting memory.

Farmer Joe interjected, seizing the moment to express his strong disapproval of the self-satisfying approach this governing party has taken to legal and constitutional matters during this century.

He agonised over how “the signature example at Independence of a unified approach by both parties to the legal and constitutional issues which address the best interests of our kind lasted until 2003 when one party contrived to colt the game”.

That unified approach was solidified during Prime Minister Patterson’s first term in 1995, when there was complete acceptance by Parliament of the way forward contained in a report of recommendations from a Parliamentary Committee on Constitutional and Electoral Reform.

The Jamaica Labour Party, in September 2003, under Edward Seaga, withdrew from that landmark parliamentary agreement.

The record discloses that, since that unexplained decision, its self-satisfying approach has stunningly failed to reap any success in legal and constitutional issues, whether in government or in opposition, in court and out of court, from the ‘Dudus-Manatt’ happening to this day.

The prime minister’s year-old, unpursued, floated Vale Royal talks would surely have facilitated a mandatory sea change in approach, they murmured bitterly, freshening their drinks.

A.J. NICHOLSON