That the first modern democracy should still choose its head of state on grounds of birth defies common sense. But though man is a logical being in theory, he is seldom completely so in practice. Tradition is often a better master of passion than reason, and history judges not by what should work but by what has. For over 300 years constitutional British monarchs have reigned serenely in mankind’s most durable democracy. Every other political system known has been interrupted by coup, civil war and assassination. An institution which lasts so long and bears such fruit provides its own justification.

Roughly the same system has also worked well in Jamaica. Since 1962 we have held regular elections, suffered no serious assassinations or uprisings, adhered to the rule of law, and maintained a free press. Relatively few countries can make the same claim. Karl Popper called democracy “the type of government which can be removed without violence”. From this perspective independent Jamaica is a great democratic success. Even the most dedicated anti-monarchist must hear a faint Cassandra within warning “Don’t fix it if it’s not broken!”.

When overheated emotions put the nation on the verge of civil war in 1980, the Governor General was a lone voice of nonpartisan reason. His were the only public utterances not suspect of political bias. For like the queen, her representative must by tradition be above party and speak for nation and not faction. Without the GG to calm the political waters, who knows what would have happened in those desperate times?

In theory a president could play the same role. But Jamaica is so prone to political tribalize every aspect of life that it is difficult to imagine any president maintaining a non-aligned stance for long. Without the ceremonial trappings and centuries of tradition, the sense of non-partisanship is simply not there, as Trinidad is currently finding out. If the twin island republic had some completely independent national voice its race and party divisions might not have reached such critical levels. But President A.N.R. Robinson is simply viewed as part of the opposition. And the bitter racial and political animosity have many deeply worried about how the next general election will unfold. It is not only sentimentalists who wonder if it is sheer co-incidence that all ex-British colonies with links to the crown are stable democracies, while the republican record is very uneven.

Perhaps the warm reception Prince Charles received on his recent visit was partly due to his charity work. His Prince of Wales trust is one of the world’s largest business startup agencies for disadvantaged young people. But ever since 1838 the general populace has seen the monarchy and what it stands for as a protector of its rights. And history has largely proved them right.

In 1830 the Jamaican Assembly refused to implement the slave amelioration measures drawn up by the British parliament. Some members threatened to join the United States or set up an independent republic. The Sam Sharpe rebellion was sparked by rumours among slaves that planters were denying them a freedom already granted by the Crown. They sang

“Oh me good friend Mr. Wilberforce make we free… Backra in this country no mek we free… What negro for to do? Take force by force!”

Plantation slavery is one of history’s obscenities, comparable only with the holocaust. And Britain was as guilty as any nation. Some say the British abolished slavery only when it was no longer economically feasible, though the major attack on the British slave trade came during its most profitable period. Whatever the reality, no other nation took the same step. Almost single-handedly Britain eliminated the slave trade throughout the world. It maintained an anti-slavery naval patrol at considerable expense, often unilaterally imposing its anti-slavery edicts on other nations. The elimination of slavery, a worldwide institution thousands of years old, is undoubtedly modern man’s greatest moral achievement.

During the Morant Bay Rebellion Paul Bogle insisted he was not rebelling against the queen. To ex-slaves Britain was still a protector against white planters who had openly talked of Jamaica joining the United States as a slave state. Bogle’s supporters wanted to kill local whites so that the Queen would send ‘fresh gentlemen from England’. The people welcomed  Crown Colony rule.

The JLP won the 1944 elections with the slogan “self-government equals slavery”. Asked in a 1998 poll if the justice system was better before independence a majority of Jamaicans answered yes. During colonialism there were mass demonstrations for economic rights, but none demanding independence. For non-white British subjects clearly enjoyed more rights and freedom than their counterparts in America or other European colonies. Like old age, British rule was not so bad considering the alternative.

Still, its relative tolerance and justice were often mixed with arrogant racism. The British Empire was the most beneficial institution of its kind that ever existed. It succeeded in preparing most, though not all, of its colonies for an independence granted with almost no bloodshed. But by the mid 20^th century its historical role was complete. As Nobel economist Amartya Sen pointed out, the 1940s Indian famine would never have happened in an independent democracy.

The end of Jamaican allegiance to the crown is also a historical inevitability. Why should a mostly black country have a white head of state  living 5,000 miles away? But what will replace it? A figurehead presidency or one with real power? Directly elected or appointed by parliament? Is Jamaica mature enough to smoothly manage the long term political consequences of any such change? Nelson Mandela would be an ideal king. But who would be his successor?

Perhaps a nation with one of the world’s highest crime rates and poorest recent economic records should sort out these problems before tampering with a stable political setup. Even rich Australia recently voted in a referendum to keep the queen. People ultimately felt there was little to gain and much to lose - republican Australia would be no more prosperous or free and might be politically unstable. “Tried, tested and proven” was the successful monarchist slogan.

Jamaicans surely have the same moral right to decide on any fundamental alterations in our political framework, including the Privy Council right of appeal. A true democracy does not change time tested political and judicial systems without consulting the people. In matters so profoundly affecting our future, the entire nation must speak.