Road to Republicanism

One keeps being reminded that, “18 years after Independence, we travelled the road to Republicanism and severed Constitutional links with the British monarchy.” Instead of the Queen of England being our Head of State, we then had our own Head of State, who was chosen by the “electoral college.” No less a person than our first President of the Republic has stated more than once that the “electoral college exercise” is a mere sham. I’m not sure that was the word used but it is quite obvious that, except in very unusual circumstances, the person chosen as President is essentially the choice of the ruling party in parliament and could conceivably reflect Prime Ministerial choice. There’s of course no suggestion that once elected the President is not his own man and is bound to feel beholden to the party to which he “owes” his election. As Sir Ellis pointed out, as Governor General his office was ceremonial and he held office at the pleasure of the Prime Minister, who had at any time only to “advise the British Monarch” to have the Presidential appointment revoked.

Among other things, the Republican Constitution gave the Republican President security of tenure and allowed the President to make certain decisions on his own initiative, thereby whittling somewhat on Prime Ministerial power. One of course anticipates that the President would be someone of undoubted stature and independence and be seen to be above the hurly-burly of partisan politics and the petty bickering that characterises so much of the politics of neophytes and political troglodytes. The symbolic importance of a President, as a unifying force, who can speak to the nation above the din and cacophony of myriad self-serving crosstalk cannot be overestimated. Whereas there is a school of thought that the constitution, as text, is at variance with the political realities on the ground — and sometimes underground, and that there is little, if anything, to celebrate, the 42nd year of our Independence should not only provide us with an excuse for yet another celebration but should also be the occasion for sober reflection and a candid assessment of how we have been able to deal with the opportunities as well as challenges that have been associated with Independence and Republican-ism.

In addressing an Independence Youth Rally, on the eve of Independence, our first Premier Dr Eric Eustace Williams took the opportunity to send a message to all the (then) young people of Trinidad and Tobago, thereby sharing with them his own perspectives and his expectations of the responsibilities that would thereafter lay on the shoulders of young Trinidadians and Tobagonians. The message has not lost its relevance even with the passage of time. Quoth he: “To your tender loving hands the future of the Nation is entrusted. On your scholastic achievement the salvation of the Nation is dependent. In your innocent hearts the pride of the Nation is enshrined.” I can’t help asking: “How many of those who heard him then, still recall his exhortation?” How time flies? Dr Williams went on to say that the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chief Justice and the leader of the Opposition were all “Island Scholars” — which, I might add, meant something then. Williams said that they had been educated at taxpayers expense and were, presumably, justifying that expense by their service to the country.

As the records will show, I hold no brief for Dr Williams. I have, on occasion, characterised him as “the curate’s egg” — good in parts. Williams aroused strong passions, for and against. He still does, but he simply can’t be ignored. The first person who told me that Eric Williams is a man to watch was my friend and late Prime Minister of St Lucia, Sir George F Charles. It was almost an article of faith with Dr Williams that the “Open Sesame” to opportunities for the talented poor was education. He seemed almost to have regarded education as the “sine qua non” (an indispensable condition) of economic development. Dr Williams was particularly peeved about what he perceived as the assigned role of the colonials as “hewers of wood and drawers of water.” Some of those who sneer today at the expansion of educational opportunities may not recall that an earlier generation of not-so-privileged parents wanted their children to use educational opportunities as a means to upward social mobility or, at any rate, a future “meal ticket.”

There has been much criticism about the “double-shift” system. But Williams had long felt that it was the way to maximise the use of school buildings and other education facilities. He may not have fully anticipated the social problems that it brought in its train. But that’s another story. He told his (then) young audience: “When you return to your classes after Independence, remember therefore, each and everyone of you, that you carry the future of Trinidad and Tobago in your school bags.” Dr Williams’ “recalcitrant minority” outburst has often been used to tar him and his party with the “Racist brush,” as daughter Erica suggested. The Doc probably got blasted vex at losing the Federal election and his “Open arms” policy of “Inter-Racial Solidarity” had been un-ceremoniously rejected on what he probably perceived as simply grounds of “ethnic clannishness.” Williams knew better than most that the alternative to “living together” was, at best, “bacchanal,” at worst, “massacre.” He also knew that, “those whom the gods wish to destroy they first make mad.”