To put it another way, constitutional certitude, including the right of the citizen to challenge, in the courts, the actions of those who rule or to seek interpretations or declarations on the supreme law is a critical underpinning of democratic governance. This is why we have no complaints about or have any wish to short-circuit the efforts of anyone who has challenged the eligibility of some members of the House of Representatives to sit in the Jamaican legislature.

As was demonstrated in the Daryl Vaz/Abe Dabdoub case, the Jamaican courts are quite competent at interpreting the meaning and intent of the constitutional provisions and the electorate, with respect and regard for the law, and are capable of determining what is in its best interest. It is, therefore, paternalistic to suggest that people need to be saved from themselves - the argument taken to its logical conclusion - and that we ought to let well alone with regard to those members of the legislature who may be occupying seats in either of its chambers unconstitutionally.

Certain absurdity

All this, of course, is not to suggest that the need for a review of the constitutional provisions on who is entitled to be a member of the House of Representatives or to sit in the Senate is not immediate and urgent. The Vaz case proved that it is. For, as Justice Panton, the president of the Court of Appeal, observed, there is a certain absurdity in the fact that a citizen of a Commonwealth country who has been resident in Jamaica for a year can be a member of the parliament, while a Jamaican who "by virtue of his own act (is) under any acknowledgement of allegiance, obedience to a foreign power or state" is debarred.

Roll call for citizenship

This is why we endorse the motion tabled in the House by the Opposition People's National Party's (PNP) Ronald Thwaites, which would require members to declare their citizenship status and for Parliament to debate the circumstances, including the matter of dual citizenship, of membership. Mr Thwaites' resolution may affect some members of his own party. But that ought not to matter to the PNP's leadership if, as they professed during the prosecution of the Vaz case, their interest was to uphold the integrity of the Constitution. Perhaps House Speaker Delroy Chuck, independent of Mr Thwaites' resolution, should proceed with a roll call on the citizenship status of members of the House.

But it is the second leg of Mr Thwaites' resolution which, going forward, is more profound, demanding a fundamental and honest reflection of how Jamaicans at home and abroad see their relationship with each other and their respective roles in governance at home. This requires a broad and deep debate - beyond bipartisan consensus - on constitutional reform.

Indeed, Section 40 (2) of the Constitution may be subject to amendment by a simple majority in the legislature, but Section 39, which lays the foundation for parliamentary representation, including the right of membership by Commonwealth citizens, is deeply entrenched. In any event, this is fundamentally the people's business.

The opinions on this page, except for the above, do not necessarily reflect the views of The Gleaner. To respond to a Gleaner editorial, email us: editor@gleanerjm.com or fax: 922-6223. Responses should be no longer than 400 words. Not all responses will be published.