We could be in for a political crisis (or a series of by-elections) if the Speaker of the House decides to take a roll call on those members who have dual citizenship or American green cards. Street perception is that when it comes to wanting the 'good life' that Uncle Sam affords, there is no political division among our political leaders.

Some people feel strongly about this matter of our parliamentarians having dual citizenship or divided loyalties as they see it. Speaker of the House Delroy Chuck has gone further and has asserted that the Court's ruling makes it untenable for parliamentarians who have green cards to sit in the House.

Many persons believe that aside from the legal technicalities and constitutional issues, it is inherently immoral or unconscionable for someone to be making laws for Jamaicans and yet be able to escape the consequences of his actions by being able to fly off to North America or wherever while the rest of us suffer here. Some say they need no ruling by any chief justice, Court of Appeal or any constitutional amendment to know that.

They feel passionately that people who make laws and who wield political power must know that they have to stay here and face whatever results from their actions. At heart, they feel this is an issue of moral authority and legitimacy.

Others feel that we should not adopt too narrow and too restrictive a view of citizenship. We are citizens of the world. "The Earth is but one country and mankind its citizens", as the founder of the Baha'i faith, Baha'u'llah, said famously. In this age of globalisation, why should we be quibbling over whether someone who sits in our Parliament has papers giving him certain privileges in another country? Why do we feel the need to own that person? some would perhaps argue.

But, what if a war were declared or there were a conflict between Jamaica and that other country to which the parliamentarian or official has sworn allegiance? These and other questions will arise and the discussion will go back and forth, coloured, no doubt by partisanship - for this, after all, is Jamaica.

AN ISSUE OF VALUES

There is an underlying aspect of this dual citizenship issue which generally escapes us. It points to the issue which, for me, the most fundamental one is facing us in Jamaica. It is not an issue of politics, of which party is better for Jamaica, nor of economic management nor constitutional reform. It is an issue of values. There are some people who would regard their United States (US) citizenship or their green card as their most valuable possession. For despite the money they might have in Jamaica, because of their fears about what could happen here, they take comfort in the fact that they can fly out at any time and that they have the great US to defend their interests.

Giving that up to serve Jamaica - as intoxicating as power can be - is not sufficiently attractive to some persons.

There are some persons who actually thought that Daryl Vaz was actually foolish to give up his US citizenship to sit in Parliament, for he cannot guarantee how long he will be in government and he might not be able to get back his citizenship after he vacates office. Some are not risking their prized lifetime possession for fleeting political power. It really comes down to their values and what they see as more important.

We hide from this matter of values and attitudes and behave as though it is a mushy, "right kind of thing to say", but really of very little practical value. I say it is of supreme value. Politics, economic development, social order are all subsidiary to and, indeed, dependent on it. If you feel strongly that people who serve in our Parliament and hold certain other sensitive posts in Jamaica ought to demonstrate their total commitment to this little piece of rock by swearing allegiance to no other country, you realise that is a sacrifice. And so it should be, you say. They can't govern us or hold influential authority over us if they are not prepared to be fully committed and to make sacrifices to do so.

But people want to eat their cake and have it. They want the best of both worlds. Why shouldn't they? If life is purely about the maximisation of pleasure, creature comforts and power, why shouldn't people want to 'serve' while giving up as little as possible?

We don't have a culture that glorifies sacrifice, public service, postponement of gratification, etc. We have to come to expect that people choose politics the way they choose entertainment, business or the professions, not primarily for any ideological or altruistic reasons but as a career move, a way to get status, to get people defer to them and call them honourable. I am not saying that all politicians go in for that, but the population has come to accept that people go into politics today for less than honourable reasons. I am talking about perception - and this undoubtedly is the widespread perception.

People who worked in political organisation up to the 1970s can tell you of a dramatic shift in attitudes (and values) of political activists over these decades. A profound shift has taken place. (Look at how easily and almost reflexively Edward Seaga gave up his American citizenship.)

The idea of serving country above self, of giving up all for country, of holding allegiance to none other - all these things are quite noble to recite, but they don't reside in the heart of everyone who thinks about political engagement today.

benefits

So with all this legal, constitutional and political talk about dual citizenship and green-card possession, don't forget the larger issue of values. People generally have dual citizenship because of the material and psychological benefits it affords. Commonwealth or non-Commonwealth, it is usually about some wealth! And the harder and more challenging the times, the more valuable some people will find their overseas citizenship, particularly American.

This is not to say there is anything wrong with wanting to be wealthy. We must not be ashamed of wealth-creation and should have no aversion to money-making - and big money-making, too. We need money - lots of it - to deal with our problems in Jamaica. We ought to encourage wealth-generation and entrepreneurship. I am not advocating any vow of poverty here. Don't take me out of context.

But our attitude should not be one of being consumed by materialism or elevating material interests above everything else. When we do that individually or nationally, we are courting disaster.

We are on the heels of what Prime Minister Bruce Golding has promised to be a tough Budget. He said this was the most difficult Budget exercise he had participated in. We are already hearing sounds that things will be dread. We don't have to be geniuses or take tales out of school to state that people will be called on to make sacrifices, to tighten the belts (even if the phrase is not used), to band their bellies.

Columnists are already saying the people must be prepared for tough decisions. Some of the big private-sector fellows are saying government must not be afraid to take "the hard decisions" - to cut the public service, to put taxes on fuel, to raise GCT. The people will just have to understand the realities and as Sagicor boss Richard Byles told Real Business Wednesday morning: "We are at war. We are at war. Everybody has to give something." He sounded like a general.

contemporary lifestyle

What is it in our culture, in our present conditioning, in our contemporary lifestyle which prepares us to make these sacrifices in the national interest? After we have fed the people on a diet of politics and economistic servings, pooh-poohing values and dismissing them as incidental, what will form the basis of our urgent pleas for people to come together and work together as one nation, making sacrifices for our common future?

People will have to learn to do with much less, to simplify their lifestyle, to cutback, middle-class people will have to moderate their expectations and reduce their bling expenditure.

The PM has said he would be giving targeted assistance to the poor. Some cushion will be in the Budget, but it will be for the poor. But there is a large number of middle-class, lower-middle-class and even working-class people not totally poor, but very much expecting to be upwardly mobile, very much expecting to have their cars, cushy apartments or houses, expecting to be able to buy their flashy things to show off on others. There is no cushion in the Budget for this large number of vocal people.

Some of them have options - they can leave for the US. With all its problems, America will still be better than Jamaica. How will we motivate our middle-class professionals to stay in Jamaica and contribute when their lifestyle and earnings will take a hit with this budget? What will infuse them with a spirit of patriotism and self-sacrifice for their beloved Jamaica? What will make working-class people who are aspiring to switch to middle class not feel mad and fed up with the Government and Jamaica for dashing their dreams of upward mobility? What will contain this lower-middle-class discontent?

Remember we have an intensely money and status-driven culture, does that prepare us for this economic tsunami?

Ian Boyne is a veteran journalist who may be contacted at ianboyne1@yahoo.com or columns@gleanerjm.com

Member of Parliament for West Portland Daryl Vaz shows his new passport with his United States visa to members of the media at the Jamaica Labour Party's Belmont Road, New Kingston, headquarters, last week Monday. - Rudolph Brown/Chief Photographer