Constitution stimulates tribal politics

THE EDITOR: It is clear to me that most of our citizens have become so addicted to partisan politics that they are unable to see that both the PNM and the UNC have made mistakes on the one hand and valuable contributions to society on the other and, that fair and objective criticism will help both parties to be objective. If this view is accepted, it will enable constituencies and the public generally to judge the performance of the respective parties on what they have meaningfully brought to the table for them. Political parties must not be allowed to be the sole judge and jury on matters of the public well being.

I always see our politicians as products of our society and in many ways a reflection of our good and bad behaviour, and I often wonder what influence does the constitution have on our political culture and the behaviour of those who govern the country. I see things from the ground and simply tell what I see. So what is the truth about our constitution? The fisrt truth to be established is that the constitution needs reform but, in reality, no sitting Prime Minister of TT will welcome far reaching reforms with open arms when it is likely to curtial the power and influence vested in the holder of that office. In April this year Atotrney General, Glenda Morean, during an interview on a radio talk show, referred to the “Governemnt”, when asked a particular question. One of the two hosts of the programme then indicated that he was not talking about the “Government”, he was referring to the Prime Minister, to which the AG replied: “Well the Prime Minister is the Government.” When I heard the reply, I wondered if it was an unintended admission of the truth.

My concerned view is that our constitution was designed to establish and perpetrate the culture of maximum leadership in Government, that in effect, undermines collective leadership and relations between the people and their elected representative. When the party leader, who has the right to overrule the choice of party groups, selects a candidate to represent a constituency, in reality the person is selected as an arm of the political leader, who may become Prime Minister, and not someone to service a constituency. An MP in a ruling party has no power, all of it is vested in the Prime Minister who approved his/her nomination as a candidate. As it relates to servicing his/her constituency, the Member of Parliament who is given the portfolio by the Prime Minister to act on his behalf is worse off than the Member of Parliament who has none, but they both have the same problem: how do they get funding to meet the needs of the constituents without push coming to shove or the Government looking bad enough, to get the attention of the Prime Minister to approve expenditure?

Give it a study and you will see why many people complain that nothing was done for their constituencies during the term of successive Governments. They do not see their representatives after being elected because the MPs know they cannot put money where their mouths are to back up the promises they make. Did those people in Minister Ken Valley’s constituency, who demonstrated protesting his neglect, believe that he could lose his “level head and common sense” to tell the Prime Minister to forget his plans for the Red House and concentrate on putting in place the $3 million booster station to pump water up the hill for his constituents in Diego Martin Central?

Our constitution also makes it possible for a Prime Minister to use nominated senators at will to manipulate and undermine the elected representatives of the people. Over the many years we have seen favoured senators wielding more power than MPs and very often act as Prime Minister, which to me is undemocratic and insulting to the electorate and elected members of Parliament. The very nature of the Constitution is adversarial. It stimulates tribal politics and offers the opposition in Parliament two options: be a rubber stamp or a toothless watchdog, that can result in the underdevelopment of many constituencies in the country. Another cause for concern is that the provisions in the constitution for the elections of a President of the Republic, Speaker of the House, President of the Senate and the appointment of Attorney General are recipes for allegations of partiality in the exercise of their duties. From the ground, it looks like there will be a cat and mouse game with constitution reform in terms of time and substance, but I am hanging my hopes on a united labour movement, the guardian of democracy, to be in pursuit of a constitution that fully represents the collective conscience of all the people.

WYCLIFFE MORRIS
Former Director of Education
NUGFW