Tweet
Mealy-mouthed nationalism
published: Sunday | June 8, 2008
Ken Jones, Contributor
Ken Jones - Contributed
It's an ill wind that blows no good; and so it is with the twisting tornado that envelops dual citizenship in Jamaica. Abe Dabdoub's motives might not be all that laudable, but with his desire to upset the expressed will of the voters of western Portland he had made us fully aware of the lurking dangers of Section 40 of the Constitution.
For 45 years this clause has remained virtually unnoticed, certainly unused and surely as a time bomb waiting to undermine the unity of our people and, as we now see, create utter confusion in our parliamentary affairs.
Purporting to protect our Parliament from outside influences, Section 40 has made second-class citizens of hundreds of thousands of well-thinking Jamaicans at home and abroad. It has also stirred many unreasonable voices to intone against regional neighbours, including a very friendly country that has proven to be our greatest benefactor and trading partner - the United States of America. All this is being done in the name of a brand of nationalism that does not ring true; and does not take cognisance of the fact that this supposedly protective rule does not apply to such high offices as the Governor General, the Police Commissioner, and probably the head of the military force.
Divisive and discriminatory
I have inveighed against Section 40 because it is divisive and discriminatory. It sows the seeds of suspicion and dissension among our people and is founded on the basis of a false sense of insecurity, misplaced patriotism and nebulous nationalism. Was it a genuine protective device against foreign influence, it would not exempt a long list of countries chosen for us by the British Government and the Commonwealth it created. These include Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and, of course, the United Kingdom itself. These we are allowed to trust, but not the United States, for the present constitution does not allow us to choose for ourselves.
Section 40 is too old to include modern thoughts about globalisation. Still, it cannot be blamed for any present-day lack of understanding of the vital link between Jamaica and the United States, which is being made the butt receiving most of the kicks in this issue. Our northern neighbour may take little note of these attempts to sour a relationship which, although mutually beneficial, has always been hampered by America's own poor communications practices and the failure of its friends to provide the moral defence and support it so often needs.
The 'Ugly American' is an image that the United States is yet to shed. Its several demonstrations of arrogance and the exercise of imperial power at the expense of smaller states is difficult to deny. The history of Jim Crow and Joe McCarthy still haunts the memory. Even so, it would be unfair of the critics to ignore or downplay the unmatched generosity, charitable spirit and the practical display of sympathy that the US demonstrates whenever and wherever in the world succour and support are needed, whether in cash, in kind or in humanitarian services.
Obliged to speak
Whatever the justification for anti-Americanism in other parts of the world it does not apply to Jamaica. Yes, we must stand up for justice between nations; and we are obliged to speak and, if possible, act in behalf of equitable behaviour among people, regardless of colour, class, creed, gender or nationality. But that same sense of justice demands that we show good faith and gratitude to those who unfailingly come to our rescue in times of trouble; and will constantly provide haven and hope for Jamaicans seeking advancement in education, economics and social mobility for themselves and their children. future tied to america
The hard fact is that Jamaica's future is inextricably tied to America, and not only through a geographic position. Like America, we are a former colony of England. The United States population is much more cosmopolitan but a significant part is of African heritage. We both speak the same language, never mind the dialectic differences. Jamaican students are comfortable in American colleges and our athletes with their coaches. Our economics systems are similar and the exchange of goods, services, music, drama and just friendly visits is significant, and vitally so.
America is not an enemy. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that she is, or might be, a foe rather than a friend of Jamaica. There is nothing that we have worth spying upon; no vital secrets to protect; no reason to question the loyalty of our respective peoples. In fact, without American tourists, the diaspora's remittances, bauxite earnings and the opportunities for our ambitious migrants, this country would be in such a plight that no constitutional armour could save us from popular discontent and uprising. So, why are we making a fuss about Jamaicans being freely allowed to have mutually profitable ties with America?
There are many Jamaican-Americans and Caribbean-Americans who occupy legislative positions in the United States and openly advocate and support laws that favour us. American authorities do not worry about it; but here we are, working up an unpalatable stew and branding those very dual citizens as being unworthy of our trust.
In my view, it is the old colonial mentality that causes some to remain enmeshed in a constitutional chrysalis woven on imperialist instructions. It is mental slavery that allows others to have more faith in friends chosen by the master than in relatives of their own blood. This is a betrayal; and it is not what our founding fathers expected of us. Nor is it what we should bequeath to our children.
Silent nationalism
And what is this mealy-mouthed nationalism that some claim is the driving force behind their undying loyalty to Section 40? Is it the nationalism that remains inert while goods and services are openly quoted in a foreign currency? Is it the nationalism that is silent while the commanding heights of the economy are more and more occupied by foreigners?
Is it the nationalism that has to be massaged and coerced into buying and eating Jamaican food? The nationalism that is unmoved by the fact that after 40 years of independence we have to call overseas cops to help run a police force that was once run exclusively by Jamaicans? The nationalism that makes us so dependent on remittances from dual citizens in far-flung places abroad! Nationalism that merely murmurs when '100 per cent Jamaicans' plunder the public purse and make regulations to serve their personal interests!
My idea of true nationalism springs from studying the struggle and sacrifices of National Hero Marcus Garvey; and from first-hand knowledge of the work of Norman Manley, Bustamante and others of that ilk. I knew and worked with those men; and although in a minor role, I was sufficiently close to observe and learn from their example. In my experience, those stalwarts never sought to devalue the status or role of any Jamaican, including those who for whatever reason had found it feasible to take on an additional nationality.
There are those of us who understand that not everything written in a constitution will stand the test of changing times and circumstances. The time to change or eliminate Section 40 is now. We cannot continue to be victims of paranoia, alienating great numbers of our own talented and loyal people because of imagined dangers and ill-founded suspicions.
The founding fathers never believed that this present Constitution was to be an eternal commandment. Before going off to England to get Britain's approval the delegation sought the House of Representatives' acceptance of the draft; and it was in that debate that one of the signatories, Donald Sangster, declared:
"Even if this constitution becomes final in the next few months, whether with a change of words or paragraphs or some particular or not, the fact remains that it will not be a final constitution that can never again be changed or altered. And I make it quite clear to explain, because I think Jamaica should know that there is provision in the constitution to change any one of the sections, even the ties with Great Britain. It may be long, it may be arduous, it may involve a certain amount of activity and it may involve the voice of the people itself, but there is nothing written in the constitution to say it can never be changed or there can never be new thinking about Jamaica's role in world affairs or in the Commonwealth …"
Can this generation take up the challenge to change?
Ken Jones is a veteran journalist and general secretary of the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs.
published: Sunday | June 8, 2008
Ken Jones, Contributor
Ken Jones - Contributed It's an ill wind that blows no good; and so it is with the twisting tornado that envelops dual citizenship in Jamaica. Abe Dabdoub's motives might not be all that laudable, but with his desire to upset the expressed will of the voters of western Portland he had made us fully aware of the lurking dangers of Section 40 of the Constitution.
For 45 years this clause has remained virtually unnoticed, certainly unused and surely as a time bomb waiting to undermine the unity of our people and, as we now see, create utter confusion in our parliamentary affairs.
Purporting to protect our Parliament from outside influences, Section 40 has made second-class citizens of hundreds of thousands of well-thinking Jamaicans at home and abroad. It has also stirred many unreasonable voices to intone against regional neighbours, including a very friendly country that has proven to be our greatest benefactor and trading partner - the United States of America. All this is being done in the name of a brand of nationalism that does not ring true; and does not take cognisance of the fact that this supposedly protective rule does not apply to such high offices as the Governor General, the Police Commissioner, and probably the head of the military force.
Divisive and discriminatory
I have inveighed against Section 40 because it is divisive and discriminatory. It sows the seeds of suspicion and dissension among our people and is founded on the basis of a false sense of insecurity, misplaced patriotism and nebulous nationalism. Was it a genuine protective device against foreign influence, it would not exempt a long list of countries chosen for us by the British Government and the Commonwealth it created. These include Australia, South Africa, Pakistan and, of course, the United Kingdom itself. These we are allowed to trust, but not the United States, for the present constitution does not allow us to choose for ourselves.
Section 40 is too old to include modern thoughts about globalisation. Still, it cannot be blamed for any present-day lack of understanding of the vital link between Jamaica and the United States, which is being made the butt receiving most of the kicks in this issue. Our northern neighbour may take little note of these attempts to sour a relationship which, although mutually beneficial, has always been hampered by America's own poor communications practices and the failure of its friends to provide the moral defence and support it so often needs.
The 'Ugly American' is an image that the United States is yet to shed. Its several demonstrations of arrogance and the exercise of imperial power at the expense of smaller states is difficult to deny. The history of Jim Crow and Joe McCarthy still haunts the memory. Even so, it would be unfair of the critics to ignore or downplay the unmatched generosity, charitable spirit and the practical display of sympathy that the US demonstrates whenever and wherever in the world succour and support are needed, whether in cash, in kind or in humanitarian services.
Obliged to speak
Whatever the justification for anti-Americanism in other parts of the world it does not apply to Jamaica. Yes, we must stand up for justice between nations; and we are obliged to speak and, if possible, act in behalf of equitable behaviour among people, regardless of colour, class, creed, gender or nationality. But that same sense of justice demands that we show good faith and gratitude to those who unfailingly come to our rescue in times of trouble; and will constantly provide haven and hope for Jamaicans seeking advancement in education, economics and social mobility for themselves and their children. future tied to america
The hard fact is that Jamaica's future is inextricably tied to America, and not only through a geographic position. Like America, we are a former colony of England. The United States population is much more cosmopolitan but a significant part is of African heritage. We both speak the same language, never mind the dialectic differences. Jamaican students are comfortable in American colleges and our athletes with their coaches. Our economics systems are similar and the exchange of goods, services, music, drama and just friendly visits is significant, and vitally so.
America is not an enemy. There is not a scintilla of evidence to suggest that she is, or might be, a foe rather than a friend of Jamaica. There is nothing that we have worth spying upon; no vital secrets to protect; no reason to question the loyalty of our respective peoples. In fact, without American tourists, the diaspora's remittances, bauxite earnings and the opportunities for our ambitious migrants, this country would be in such a plight that no constitutional armour could save us from popular discontent and uprising. So, why are we making a fuss about Jamaicans being freely allowed to have mutually profitable ties with America?
There are many Jamaican-Americans and Caribbean-Americans who occupy legislative positions in the United States and openly advocate and support laws that favour us. American authorities do not worry about it; but here we are, working up an unpalatable stew and branding those very dual citizens as being unworthy of our trust.
In my view, it is the old colonial mentality that causes some to remain enmeshed in a constitutional chrysalis woven on imperialist instructions. It is mental slavery that allows others to have more faith in friends chosen by the master than in relatives of their own blood. This is a betrayal; and it is not what our founding fathers expected of us. Nor is it what we should bequeath to our children.
Silent nationalism
And what is this mealy-mouthed nationalism that some claim is the driving force behind their undying loyalty to Section 40? Is it the nationalism that remains inert while goods and services are openly quoted in a foreign currency? Is it the nationalism that is silent while the commanding heights of the economy are more and more occupied by foreigners?
Is it the nationalism that has to be massaged and coerced into buying and eating Jamaican food? The nationalism that is unmoved by the fact that after 40 years of independence we have to call overseas cops to help run a police force that was once run exclusively by Jamaicans? The nationalism that makes us so dependent on remittances from dual citizens in far-flung places abroad! Nationalism that merely murmurs when '100 per cent Jamaicans' plunder the public purse and make regulations to serve their personal interests!
My idea of true nationalism springs from studying the struggle and sacrifices of National Hero Marcus Garvey; and from first-hand knowledge of the work of Norman Manley, Bustamante and others of that ilk. I knew and worked with those men; and although in a minor role, I was sufficiently close to observe and learn from their example. In my experience, those stalwarts never sought to devalue the status or role of any Jamaican, including those who for whatever reason had found it feasible to take on an additional nationality.
There are those of us who understand that not everything written in a constitution will stand the test of changing times and circumstances. The time to change or eliminate Section 40 is now. We cannot continue to be victims of paranoia, alienating great numbers of our own talented and loyal people because of imagined dangers and ill-founded suspicions.
The founding fathers never believed that this present Constitution was to be an eternal commandment. Before going off to England to get Britain's approval the delegation sought the House of Representatives' acceptance of the draft; and it was in that debate that one of the signatories, Donald Sangster, declared:
"Even if this constitution becomes final in the next few months, whether with a change of words or paragraphs or some particular or not, the fact remains that it will not be a final constitution that can never again be changed or altered. And I make it quite clear to explain, because I think Jamaica should know that there is provision in the constitution to change any one of the sections, even the ties with Great Britain. It may be long, it may be arduous, it may involve a certain amount of activity and it may involve the voice of the people itself, but there is nothing written in the constitution to say it can never be changed or there can never be new thinking about Jamaica's role in world affairs or in the Commonwealth …"
Can this generation take up the challenge to change?
Ken Jones is a veteran journalist and general secretary of the Farquharson Institute of Public Affairs.
Comment