Roving national awards

It was reported that Prime Minister Dr Keith Rowley was consulted in relation to the decision to shift the ceremony from Independence Day to Republic Day, but we are none the wiser as to the Cabinet’s view. Though the President is Chancellor of the Distinguished Society of the Order, let us not forget the role played by the Prime Minister in the National Awards process.

The Prime Minister has the power to veto any name put forward by the National Awards Committee. He or she may accept, reject or add to the Committee’s recommendations. It is the Prime Minister who then advises the President to bestow the final list of awards. Furthermore, the President has a status of Chancellor of the Order but does not determine categories of the awards.

It was the Cabinet that decided on December 21, 1967 that there should be seven categories and 14 classes of National Awards. The Cabinet subsequently amended these numbers to four categories and ten classes.

The spirit of the role of the President - who must generally act on the advice of Cabinet - suggests a change as important as shifting the date of the ceremony is no mere administrative trifle. By his own terms, the shift is profound given its envisioned impact on Republic Day observances. Such a profound, nationally symbolic matter should be determined by the people or at least their elected representatives.

So, in truth the President’s role is limited. But even if this were not the case, the very nature of these awards dictates far more from the Office of the President. It is important that the ceremonial Head of State do nothing to in any way tarnish the awards. This means the post-holder should be circumspect in seeking to bring about any change that might engender controversy.

In this instance, Carmona has risked the creation of a pall over all of this year’s recipients through the perceived lack of widespread consultation.

Whom did the President consult? And was this consultation good enough? All of this is separate and apart from the merits of a move.

Clearly there are benefits.

Firstly, the Independence Day routine is crowded with a range of activities and functions for the public and the various protective services. So much so that various public officials over the years have fainted or pulled out of events.

Still, it is ironic that the President seeks to remind the population of the significance of our becoming a republic when in fact, the actual date we became a republic was August 1, 1976.

September 24 was the date the first Parliament met.

The deeper issue is the lack of transparency over the awards, not just their date but also the reasons for awardees being honoured. The traditional citations used are far too brief. So, though we welcome the shift, we call for clarity on the question of consultation in relation to this matter. The National Awards should not be a roving event and we deserve far better.