Although attempts to amend this country’s constitution tend to give rise to spasmodic controversy and heated public debate — often characterised by the generation of more heat than light — there does not appear to be the sustained interest in “constitutional matters” as there is in what are generally regarded as “bread and butter” or, in some cases, even “jam and wine” issues.
Although the call for “constitutional reform” predated the Dr Eric Williams political era, it was probably Williams who gave it that added impetus and placed it squarely in the public domain. There was adult suffrage before Eric Williams’ dramatic political entry, we had the legislative and executive formats with the colonial governor being firmly in control and ultimately responsible to whoever was his boss at the colonial office.
Unless I’m mistaken, the governor selected individual ministers and assigned portfolios. One such minister at the time was Albert Marie Gomes. Gomes held the portfolios of Industry and Labour. That made Bertie Gomes a veritable “power-house” in the scheme of things. Of large physical stature (what Bertie called “my physical envelope”) Gomes flitted here, there and everywhere to this, that and the other “Oils and Fats” or “Sugar” international conference. Incidentally, Dr Eric Williams was Bertie’s advisor at some of those conferences. Williams lost his job at the Caribbean Commission and is said to have felt that Gomes’ support was lukewarm. But that’s another story.
It’s now history that Williams “dropped his bucket” here and “threw his hat” in the political ring. Those who like to research newspapers of that era would no doubt be interested in a composite front page picture of the corpulent Gomes on one side and the diminutive Williams on the other (David and Goliath style) with the caption: “A Messiah in the making and the man who’s out to break him.” Gomes was himself eventually broken, and disappeared from the political scene.
There were two ill-advised political statements attributed to Bertie Gomes, to wit, “In politics, anything goes” and “I am the government of Trinidad and Tobago.” The “old-timers” would probably remember how Gomes was “chewed up” in public by the Doc for his “situational ethics” and assumed “arbitrary power”. To cut a long story short Williams himself was, unapologetically, able to accumulate vast constitutional and other power in his hand until he could have blurted out: “I can say unto any man, ‘Goeth, and he goeth. Cometh and he cometh’.” And the Doc wasn’t joking.
Now “power” is a heady wine. When the Black Power crowds were marching up and down the place, shouting “Power to the people!” Williams kept an uncanny silence, but he was not unaware that it could have ended up in a “prime ministerial goose being cooked.” Characteristically contemptuous, as I understand it, on being asked at a private function for a response to the numerous marches, Williams retorted, “You mean that rabble out there?” Later, and in a more public forum, Williams was reported to have said, “They talk about power, well I am the one with the power.” Robber talk, from the man who thundered in a whisper?
Now, if I’ve said it once, I’ve said it a thousand times, and it is my considered view that no one or group is wise enough or good enough to justifiably be entrusted to exercise the power conferred on the ‘executive” by the constitution, in the absence of formal and informal restraints and constraints. Good (read effective) laws or constitutional tenets cannot assume that incumbents of office or of legally created institutions will necessarily be paragons of virtue or blessed with the finest minds.
Given the nature of politics and that low cunning can at times outmanoeuvre genuine intelligence, there’s at least the possibility that one can end up with a congenital idiot, a compulsive liar or incorrigible thief.
According to Lord Acton’s dictum, “Power corrupts and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.” So in any consideration of constitutional matters, there must be some focus on how the legitimate power is dispersed, restraints to avert its abuse (sometimes called “checks and balances”), the processes that allow transparency of the exercise of significant powers, sanctions for misuse of power and attendant accountability.
What we have in theory is “parliamentary democracy,” where the voters elect members of parliament and the majority who constitute themselves into a consistent voting block are entitled to have one of their members, (presumably but not necessarily the leader of a political party) asked to form a cabinet and assign ministerial portfolios. Prime Ministers never cease to remind the members of the party that ministerial and sub-ministerial positions, with accompanying perks and salaries are gifts which can be conferred or withheld on the basis of party, personal loyalty (yes Mr Prime Minister, you are so smart, Sir)or any other unspecified consideration.
In the event, political parties (in and out of office) are liable to become victims of “trickle down” self-sustaining stupidity.
A wise prime minister ought not, as a matter of course, to flaunt the power of office or exercise it in such an arbitrary way as to unnecessarily create societal convulsions. It’s not unknown for prime ministers to make a purely mathematical mandate for an overwhelming mandate (even to mash up de place) or even “a mandate from heaven.” The question of “mandate” is one that should be carefully considered and borne in mind. People do not only cast “positive votes” but “negative votes as well.” The idea that the majority of your votes is testimony to your own political attractiveness may be quite misconceived as it may simply be a question of choosing the lesser of “two political evils.”
Speaking of the prime minister’s power, CLR James compared the incumbent to an all-powerful “Father, Son and Holy Ghost,” presumably all rolled into one. I prefer the metaphor of “the Octopus,” with myriad tentacles. It’s become fashionable to lament that, “The emperor has no clothes.” What I find even more disconcerting is when “Within the ‘imperial garments’ there exists no emperor.” How sad! How very sad!
