Acceso usuarios
Aaron Graham
Britons and Americans seem to have agreed about most constitutional principles in 1776, apart from who was to be represented and how. It has been argued by many historians of the American Revolution that this formed the basis for conflict and change. Examining how representation was conceptualized in Jamaica during the same period suggests that these differences have been overdrawn. Concepts of direct and ‘virtual’ representation were inchoate and inconsistent in all three places. They were often used strategically rather than to express essential and irreconcilable differences. Consequently, the debate over representation continued in all three places after 1776, and although compromises were struck in Britain and America through the rise of parliamentary sovereignty and republican constitutionalism respectively, in Jamaica the principles and practices of representation therefore continued to be contested. More broadly, this suggest that such tensions are immanent and unavoidable in any parliamentary system, and they can only be balanced rather than fully reconciled.
