Peter Espeut | Lessons from up north

I think it is very important for us Jamaicans to watch closely events to the north of us.  To the south too, but especially to the north.  Yes, I have Cuba in mind, but I am really thinking about Trump’s America.

We who seek to reform our polity from a monarchy to a republic must take note of the flaws in the US version of the latter exposed by King Donald.  I am sure many – if not most – Americans were pretty happy with their 237-year-old constitution, until very recently, and I expect in four years or so, a great many changes in that document will be proposed.

One objection many make of a monarchy is that the king/emperor rules by decree, without necessarily any input from the citizenry or their representatives.  In the US version of the republic, the president of the United States (POTUS) heads the executive branch of government, and may issue “executive orders” to quickly implement policy.  All well and good.

But in 2025 President Trump issued 225 executive orders; and when you think that there are only about 250 working days in a year (depending on which days holidays fall) that is just under one per day.  In all of 2024, President Biden issued 19 executive orders, and 24, 29, and 77 (mostly COVID matters) in the previous three years.  By comparison, President Obama signed 276 executive orders over his eight years in office, or an average of just under 35/year.

I am quite prepared to accept that executive presidents need to be able to issue executive orders, but at some point it is possible for a president to abuse his authority, and effectively “rule by decree” just like an emperor.  The US constitution assumes that POTUS will act reasonably, and puts no limit on this power.  But what if an executive president is unreasonable?

In my view, in the US some mechanism has to be found to minimise the possibility of executive abuse; and if in the end Jamaica opts for an executive president – as some advocate – we will need to do the same.

I am sure many are questioning the wisdom of allowing POTUS to nominate the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS), to be confirmed by whoever.  The assumption – I suppose – is that POTUS will nominate fair and balanced jurists; but what if POTUS nominates waggonists and passeros, and they get confirmed because POTUS’ party has a majority in the confirming entity?  

It is an aberration that a SCOTUS largely appointed by Democrats legalises abortion, and a SCOTUS largely appointed by Republicans reverses that ruling; but it can get worse!  What if, for example, the SCOTUS rules that the POTUS is immune from prosecution (even from murder)?  Or rules in his favour when his executive orders are challenged in court?  I don’t think we in Jamaica would put up with that! 

In our Westminster system, no politician nominates judges directly; politicians nominate the Judicial Services Commission, which appoints the judges (so it is indirect); except, of course, for the chief justice, who is directly appointed by the prime minister; and we remember the probationary appointment made some years ago, with confirmation conditional on good behaviour.  Thank God the Jamaican judges would have none of that!  And vociferously protested!  But the direct appointment of the chief justice of Jamaica remains the prerogative of the prime minister of Jamaica.  Surely Jamaica’s new constitution will change that!

In practice, an independent judiciary is the only bulwark against executive over-reach.  There can be no compromise on that.  We have to find a better way than services commissions to insulate government appointments from political influence. 

Under the Westminster system, Cabinet members (the rest of the executive) must come from Parliament, whether the upper or lower house.  This severe restriction usually means that top-quality administrators are excluded from managing the ministries of government.  Many people advocate implementing locally, the US system (where POTUS nominates from the private sector, and the nominees are subject to confirmation hearings).

But the weakness of that system is that POTUS can appoint friends and family to positions for which they are patently unqualified, and in areas about which they have no knowledge or experience; and they will always get confirmed because of partisan majorities in the confirming bodies.

Again, the US Constitution assumes that POTUS will act in the best interest of the country, and not in his personal interest; and we know that can be an invalid assumption.  If we chose to source our Cabinet members from outside parliament, we have to put rules in place to ensure we don’t get (as a Cabinet) a royal council of sycophants, instead of a high-powered management team. 

I don’t know what integrity legislation is in place in the USA to minimise conflicts of interest, and to ensure impartiality in the (so-called) Justice Department.  If a senior Jamaican politician owned a hotel, could our government get away with consistently holding meetings and functions there, thereby substantially enriching the owner?  Could our prime minister get away with asking Jamaica’s investigative services to scrutinise the affairs of his critics?

There seem to be wide gaps in US integrity legislation, even wider than ours here in Jamaica!

But what the US polity has that we don’t, are media houses prepared to heavily invest in investigating reporting, and a citizenry prepared to take to the streets in their hundreds of thousands to protest government wrongdoing.

I suppose we have something to look forward to.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com