Jalil Dabdoub | Democracy and tribalism: Jamaica’s dangerous political culture

The reaction to my recent article on democracy and constitutional balance has, perhaps unintentionally, underscored one of the very dangers it sought to address. The evil of political tribalism.

The article examined the constitutional tension between executive authority, institutional oversight, and procedural fairness. It acknowledged the PM’s constitutional right to seek redress while also affirming that oversight bodies must remain sufficiently independent to investigate allegations involving powerful public officials. In essence, constitutional democracies require balance. Institutions must be strong enough to provide scrutiny, but they too must operate within the bounds of law and fairness.

Yet for some, the mere discussion of institutional accountability was interpreted not as constitutional analysis, but as political hostility. Disagreements are healthy in democracies. Constitutional questions should generate vigorous intellectual debate. 

What was striking instead was how quickly serious national discussion deteriorated into partisan confrontation. That reaction deserves reflection because of what it reveals about Jamaica’s civic and political culture, particularly among its political leadership.

Too many Jamaicans continue to approach constitutional questions through politically tinted lenses. This tendency exists across the political divide and has become deeply embedded within the national consciousness.

The response to the article demonstrated how entrenched this culture has become. For many, the issue was not whether the arguments presented were sound or constitutionally important. The concern was whether the discussion politically benefited or inconvenienced one side.

A mature democracy cannot function where every constitutional issue is reduced to tribal warfare. Oversight cannot automatically become “anti-government,” judicial scrutiny cannot become “political sabotage,” and public commentary cannot become legitimate only when directed against political opponents. Democracy demands greater intellectual vigour and civic maturity from citizens and political leaders alike.

One of the unfortunate consequences of Jamaica’s longstanding political tribalism is that many citizens view politics not as the management of national institutions, but as an extension of party loyalty. Once that occurs, criticism of government is interpreted not merely as disagreement, but as personal or tribal hostility. Eventually, principle itself becomes buried beneath tribal allegiance. That is a dangerous environment for any democracy.

The consequences are significant. Leaders become surrounded by “yes men” incapable of objective evaluation. Institutions become delegitimised whenever they investigate politically powerful figures. Courts face accusations of bias whenever rulings carry political consequences. Public discourse deteriorates into confrontation where meaningful debate and practical solutions become increasingly difficult.

Constitutional safeguards exist precisely because democracies recognise that all governments, regardless of intentions, require restraint. Oversight mechanisms are not created solely for administrations we oppose. They exist equally for administrations we support.

In a Democracy, constitutional fairness must apply consistently. The PM is entitled to due process because constitutional democracies protect legal rights universally, not selectively. But that same constitutional order also requires that institutions possess sufficient independence to investigate allegations involving the PM or any other public official.

Both principles must coexist simultaneously in a functioning democracy.

Jamaica increasingly finds itself unable to have principled national conversations detached from tribal hostility. This poses a far greater long-term threat to democracy than many appreciate.

Democracies are not sustained merely by constitutions written on paper. They survive through civic and political culture. Institutions ultimately depend on public trust, democratic norms, restraint, and a collective acceptance that constitutional principles matter more than political parties. Once citizens begin defending parties more aggressively than principles, democracy is eroded.

Balance in a democracy was the central theme of the original article. Yet the reaction in some quarters suggested that even discussing constitutional balance itself had become politically offensive. This is why Jamaica’s democratic challenge is now cultural as much as institutional.

The issue is no longer simply whether Jamaica possesses oversight institutions, constitutional safeguards, or independent courts. The larger question is whether the political culture itself is sufficiently mature to allow those institutions to thrive without every action being interpreted through a tribal lens.

This dynamic is not unique to Jamaica, but it is particularly consequential in smaller political systems where party identity can become deeply intertwined with social life. Over time, this produces a political environment in which arguments are evaluated less on constitutional merit and more on whether they appear to advantage or disadvantage a political side.

Democracy cannot function properly where every constitutional issue becomes a battle between orange and green.

A democracy cannot survive if citizens only support institutional accountability when their political opponents are under scrutiny. Equally, constitutional safeguards cannot be defended selectively. Principles must apply consistently or they cease to be principles altogether.

Unfortunately, while the violence associated with earlier eras of Jamaican politics has largely subsided, the tribal psychology itself remains part of our national consciousness.

The country faces too many serious national challenges to remain trapped in this cycle. Economic development, institutional reform, productivity growth, education, crime reduction, governance stability, and public trust all require more than party loyalty. They require political maturity and national thinking.

Can Jamaicans defend constitutional principles consistently regardless of which party occupies office? Can citizens support governments while still accepting legitimate scrutiny? Can public debate occur without instantly descending into partisan hostility? Can institutional accountability exist without being interpreted as political warfare?

The deeper concern, therefore, is not simply institutional infrastructure, but civic and political culture itself,whether citizens can distinguish between tribal allegiance and constitutional principle.

At some point Jamaica must decide whether national progress requires citizens or merely tribal supporters. There is an important difference between the two.

Supporters defend parties. Citizens defend principles regardless of party affiliation.

Democratic maturity begins when the latter becomes more important than the former.

Jalil Dabdoub is an attorney-at-law. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com