PNP cannot celebrate – Vaz ruling is hollow victory.

If I were Darly Vaz, Member of Parliament for West Portland, I would be ashamed and guilt-ridden. Vaz had two cases against him – one a constitutional matter, and the other, a criminal matter. His possession of dual citizenship (American and Jamaican) was found to be in breach of Section 40 (2) of the Jamaican constitution. The ruling means that Darly Vaz is no longer eligible to be a member of the Cabinet. Indeed, his nomination as a candidate at the September 3 elections was seen to be redundant.  The criminal case against him is still pending.

In other jurisdictions, one would not need to take a public servant to court on clear matters of breach. A sitting Member of Parliament, obviously committed to his constituents, should be equally committed to his country and its laws – its Constitution. Surely, upon being sworn in as a member of the Jamaican parliament, Vaz would have sworn, among other things, to respect the Constitution. Of course, I am the first one to say that you need not hang out in Jamaica to prove your patriotism or commitment. The majority of Jamaicans live at home, and only a handful aren’t merely spectators in their own society. I believed Darly Vaz when he spoke during the election campaign period. His flaws notwithstanding, I believe that his commitment to his country is genuine. But that is besides the point in this matter.

The Jamaican constitution must be upheld. Or be rid of it. Politicians (and other public servants) who find themselves in breach of the constitution must, publicly, rectify their positions. Or stand down. The same rule must also apply to the ordinary citizen. Flout the law and suffer the consequences. Indeed, as former Prime Minister of Jamaica, PJ Patterson proclaims some years ago, ‘the law is not a shackle to enslave … it is a tool of social engineering’.

Although the Prime Minister’s remarks then were conveniently and farcically taken out of context by segments of a sensationalist media hungry for controversy, the point is that the law serves to support social order and prevent social disintegration. Enforcing the law and applying it equally creates and fosters general equality.  One need not study sociology to know that judgements pass down in one case, and made public, either underscores and reinforces the regulations by which a society is guided  or establishes that the social order requires remodelling. The fundamental tenets by which a society orders itself must be upheld and enforced in order to retain their relevance.

For the above reasons, I believe that, in principle, attorney-at-law, Abe Dabdoub, the man who lost the seat to Darly Vaz in West Portland – and the party he represents, the PNP, are absolutely correct in bringing forward a case of breach to the Constitution. At the same time, the landmark ruling in the dual citizenship case brought against Darly Vaz is a much more complex phenomenon than stated here. Indeed, the underlying political motives and objectives which triggered this case, and its meanings for those involved, and the consequences for Jamaica and Jamaicans (including those who live and work overseas) requires an entire book to explain. (I really do hope our historians are taking notice and making the requisite record of this moment. We are without question living and experiencing history.  Sadly, so much of our contemporary lived experienced is ignored by an intellectual class merely content on rethinking the past).

That matters such as the dual citizenship debacle nature had not arisen before is phenomenal, given the number of elections that had been held in the post independence period in Jamaica. Election results, however, were never this close. Never before had the contest for power been so desperate. Had the Jamaica Labour Party lost another election, they would have been made redundant. Their raison d’etre would have been nullified. They would have perhaps hung themselves. On the other hand, had the PNP not taken for granted its contituents longstanding loyalty; had it not abused and misused its power; had it not bartered its place and power in the Jamaican psyche for misguided populism, it would not have to rely on the Courts to hand it political power.

For those naive enough to think otherwise, make no mistake – the unconsitutionality of Vaz (and others) retaining membership in the House of Parliament, would appear to be the secondary motive in this case; the primary being what the landmark ruling may demand – and as in fact implies – a nullified West Portland seat, a second chance for the PNP (or at least some members) to right what it felt was a wrong against it. Very few people will argue against the principle here, but the motives seem suspect.

For what purpose, then, is the the Jamaican judicial system to be used? Is it to be used to defend, on behalf of the citizenry, genuine breaches of law. Or might it be used to used deceptively to win political power. Political power must be won through the ballot. It ought to be won through the voters’ belief in party policies, their sympathy for political causes, their love of the personalities and their commitment to a national vision, embedded in the vision they have for themselves, their quality of life, and the kind of society they wish to live in. It ought not to be secured through politicking – even if the politicking takes place, in principle, within the courts.

Again, I reiterate that breaches of the Constitution are grave issues which cannot be taken lightly. If public servants do not adhere to the Constitution by which they all swear, then who shall? Prime Minister Bruce Golding, and the sitting JLP administration are obliged to adhere to the court ruling, in principle. This is even while they may be fully convinced that this matter has very little to do with principle.