Jamaican government urged to 'fully decolonise' with bill to ditch King Charles
KINGSTON/LONDON, March 1 (Reuters) - Many Jamaicans want their country to ditch King Charles as head of state but a bill presented by the government to do just that has frustrated some critics of the monarchy who believe the change should go further to slash colonial ties.
Jamaica gained independence in 1962 but - like 13 other former British colonies - it still retains the British monarch as its head of state.
Public opinion on the Caribbean island of nearly 3 million people has been shifting for years, and in December the government of Prime Minister Andrew Holness presented a bill to remove King Charles.
Hundreds of thousands of enslaved Africans were shipped to Jamaica during transatlantic slavery, and many scholars and advocates say the legacy of slavery and colonialism has resulted in or played a role in enduring inequities. Growing calls by African and Caribbean nations for reparations to address past wrongs have added to a shift in sentiment across the region.
Britain has so far rejected calls for reparations. On the issue of removing the monarchy as head of state, Buckingham Palace usually says such matters are for the local people and politicians to decide. On a visit to the Bahamas in 2022, Prince William - who is now heir to the throne - said he supports and respects any decision Caribbean nations make about their future.
The Jamaican bill - which could be debated in parliament as early as this month or next - would have to be ratified in a referendum if passed.
Before that, some critics - including the opposition People's National Party (PNP) - are raising objections to how a future president would be selected, what his or her role would be, and which court should be Jamaica's final court of appeal.
Steven Golding, head of the Universal Negro Improvement Association, founded more than a century ago by Jamaican civil rights leader Marcus Garvey, said the group and others had long advocated for the removal of "the last vestiges of the colonial umbilical cord".
But he added: "We must make sure that it's not a cosmetic surgery being done... we don't want to swap having a British monarch... to having a titular president. I would like to see an executive president, directly elected by the people."
Longstanding calls by some Jamaicans to abolish the monarchy picked up steam after Barbados, another former colony in the Caribbean, removed the late Queen Elizabeth as head of state in 2021. Holness told Prince William during a visit by the royal in 2022 that his country wanted to be "independent".
A survey by pollster Don Anderson in 2022 showed 56% of people in Jamaica wanted the monarch removed, up from 40% a decade earlier.
A PRESIDENT AS HEAD OF STATE
According to the government's bill, Charles' representative in Jamaica - the governor general - would be replaced by a president nominated by the prime minister in consultation with the opposition leader.
If the two could not agree on a candidate, the opposition leader could recommend a name, and if that were not accepted, the prime minister could choose a nominee who would then be elected with a simple parliamentary majority.
Donna Scott-Mottley, a spokesperson on justice for the PNP, said removing Charles would be the "final birth of a true nation" but the way the president would be chosen under the bill "compromised everything".
"If you (PM) wanted your right-hand man to become president, you simply do the nomination," Scott-Mottley told Reuters.
Former Prime Minister P. J. Patterson has also voiced opposition, saying the president would be a "puppet of the prime minister".
The government did not reply to a request for comment on the criticism.
'FULL DECOLONISATION'
The bill is likely to pass the lower house of parliament as the governing Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) currently has the two-thirds majority required, but it will need at least one opposition vote when it moves to the upper house.
Even if rejected by the upper house, the bill can still be put to a national referendum, which the government hopes to hold by next year. To pass, the referendum would need two-thirds of the vote, rather than just a simple majority.
A general election due this year may delay the process.
Another point of contention is the London-based Privy Council, the final court of appeal for UK overseas territories and some Commonwealth nations. Critics say this should be replaced by the Trinidad-based Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ).
Accessing the Privy Council can be expensive and cumbersome as those who wish to argue their cases there need a visa to travel to Britain. Caribbean nations such as Barbados, Belize and Guyana have replaced the Privy Council with the CCJ.
The Jamaican government has said matters related to the court would feature later in the "phased reform", and that Jamaicans would be able to weigh in on the matter.
Christopher Charles, professor of political and social psychology at the University of the West Indies, said keeping the Privy Council was like wanting to get divorced while keeping "a room in the matrimonial home".
Scott-Mottley said it would be "anachronistic" to drop Charles as monarch but still use his court.
Constitutional change advocate Haile Mika'el Cujo said keeping the Privy Council could put people off from voting in the referendum: "People are not going to sign off on that."
Disagreements over the Privy Council have led the PNP to pause its participation in the committee working on the bill.
"We believe that time has come for full decolonisation... not piecemeal or partial or phased," said PNP's leader Mark Golding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
Bosnia partners with EU to strengthen border security
SARAJEVO, June 11 (Reuters) - Bosnia and Herzegovina on Wednesday signed an agreement with the European Union providing for technical assistance and deployment of EU guards on its borders to control and prevent illegal migration and cross-border crime. The agreement was signed in Brussels by Borjana Kristo, the chairwoman of Bosnia's Council of Ministers, and Magnus Brunner, the EU Commissioner for Internal Affairs and Migration, a statement from Kristo's office said. "The signing today ... is an important step forward on the European path of Bosnia-Herzegovina which has thus fulfilled an EU condition and become a credible partner in securing the external borders of the EU," the statement said. An EU candidate country which has yet to start negotiations on the membership of the 27-member bloc, Bosnia was the only Western Balkan country besides Kosovo that had not signed an arrangement with the EU's border agency Frontex. Thousands of people from the Middle East, Afghanistan, Pakistan and North Africa use the so-called Balkan route, which runs via Turkey, Bulgaria, North Macedonia and Serbia, to reach wealthy Western countries. Frontex can assist EU countries by exercising powers such as border checks and registrations. The EU has said its increased cooperation on border management with the Western Balkan countries has significantly decreased illegal border crossing, with a downward trend continuing in 2025. Bosnia borders EU member Croatia, as well as Serbia and Montenegro, the countries which along with Albania and North Macedonia have signed arrangements with Frontex.
Reuters
6 minutes ago
- Reuters
Israel's contentious military exemption for ultra-Orthodox community
JERUSALEM, June 11 (Reuters) - A dispute over how many members of Israel's ultra-Orthodox Haredi community should serve in the military has destabilised Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's governing coalition. The ultra-Orthodox have long been exempt from military service, which applies to most other young Israelis, but last year the Supreme Court ordered the defence ministry to end that practice and start conscripting seminary students. The exemption, in place for decades and which over the years has spared an increasingly large number of people, has become a heated topic in Israel with the military still embroiled in a war in Gaza and after defeating Hezbollah in Lebanon. Two religious parties in Netanyahu's coalition have demanded a new law to enshrine the status of ultra-Orthodox religious seminary students - a group that has grown significantly over the decades - threatening to vote with the opposition parties and disband parliament if they don't get their way. Here are some facts about the dispute: The exemptions offered to the ultra-Orthodox Haredi community date back to the early days of the state of Israel in 1948 when its first prime minister, the socialist David Ben-Gurion, exempted about 400 students from military service so they could devote themselves to religious study. In so doing, Ben-Gurion hoped to keep alive sacred knowledge and traditions almost wiped out in the Holocaust. Since then, the exemptions have become an increasing headache as the fast-growing community has expanded to make up more than 13% of Israel's population, a proportion expected to reach around a third within 40 years due to a high birth rate. The Haredi resistance to joining the military is based around their strong sense of religious identity, which religious leaders fear risks being weakened by army service. Some Haredi men do serve in the army but most do not, which many secular Israelis feel is deeply unfair. Living in tight-knit communities and devoting their lives to religious study, many Haredi men do not work, but live off donations, state benefits and the often paltry wages of their wives. For mainstream Israelis, whose taxes subsidise the Haredim and who are themselves obliged to serve in the military, the exemptions have long bred resentment, and this has grown since the start of the war in Gaza in October 2023. Many Israelis regard the war against Hamas as an existential battle for the future of the country, and some 300,000 reservists joined up to fight at the start of the war, leaving their families and putting their careers on hold. Opinion polls have indicated broad public support for drafting the Haredi. Netanyahu's government includes two Haredi parties, United Torah Judaism and Shas, whose spiritual leaders are demanding a special status enshrined in law for their young men. However, some inside Netanyahu's Likud party have shown unease or outright opposition to blanket exemption. The prime minister is trying to find a compromise deal on a new law that would be consistent with the Supreme Court ruling. If the deadlock persists, the Haredi parties say they will vote with the opposition to dissolve parliament.
Rhyl Journal
7 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Chagossians want sovereignty deal to go ahead, says Mauritius legal adviser
Philippe Sands KC, who has represented Mauritius in its legal battle with the UK since 2010, told a House of Lords committee he wanted to 'knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved' in negotiations over the deal. His comments came a day after a panel of UN experts urged Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer to abandon the agreement reached with Mauritius last month and negotiate a new one. The panel, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, said it was 'gravely concerned about the lack of meaningful participation of Chagossians in the processes that have led to the agreement'. The experts also criticised the continuing bar on Chagossians returning to Diego Garcia, the largest of the islands, because of the ongoing presence of a joint UK-US military base. On Wednesday, Mr Sands told the Lords International Relations and Defence Committee: 'To be clear, it is not the case that Chagossians had no role in the negotiations. 'I can tell you that Chagossians in Mauritius and Seychelles were deeply involved in consulting with successive prime ministers of Mauritius and they attended the hearings at the International Court of Justice.' He added: 'I want to really knock on the head this idea that all of the Chagossians were not involved in the various processes. That is simply not true. 'It is true, however, that the Chagossian community is divided and I respect that division.' Earlier, he had told the committee that, while some UK-based Chagossians wanted the islands to remain British territory, 'most in Mauritius and Seychelles have made very clear…that they wish this deal to go ahead'. The Chagossians were expelled from the islands between 1965 and 1973 to make way for the Diego Garcia base and have not been allowed to Mr Sands told peers the 'quid pro quo' for the military base remaining on Diego Garcia was Chagossians would be allowed to settle on the outer islands of the archipelago. The deal follows a 2019 advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice saying the islands should be handed over to Mauritius. As well as establishing a £40 million fund for Chagossians, the UK has agreed to pay Mauritius at least £120 million a year for 99 years in order to lease back the Diego Garcia base – a total cost of at least £13 billion in cash terms. The deal also includes provisions preventing development on the rest of the archipelago without the UK's consent, which the Government has said will prevent countries such as China setting up their own facilities. The agreement has also been backed by the United States, the UN secretary general and the African Union, but heavily criticised by the Conservative Party as a 'surrender'. Mr Sands disagreed with that on Wednesday, saying the deal 'will enhance Britain's position in the world'. He said: 'I can tell you from personal experience, direct comments from countries, ambassadors, prime ministers, presidents around the world, this is seen as Britain back on the world (stage), acting honourably and decently, protecting its interests and safeguarding…the rule of law.'
