Let’s get on with constitution reform

I do not indulge in the practice of telling people what they want to hear, I tell them what they need to know and I have learnt that, while “truth” can set some people free, it can also imprison others. I have chosen the first and the present President of our Republic to help me enlighten the poor and less privileged Indian and African readership of Newsday throughout the country about the issue of constitution reform. One is a devoted Catholic, while the other loves his Carnival. However, their minds meet as one on the question of constitution reform and I thought it will be useful to quote them both: “I think the passage of time has exhibited the deficiencies of the Westminster system when applied to a country of our size and composition. After 40 years, the time is more than right to consider fundamental constitution reform” — First President Ellis Clark, 2002. “It could be said with justification, that after 41 years of Independence and 27 years as a Republic, it is time for change. It is time to seek new systems of Governance that will be better suited to our circumstances and our times” — sitting President George Maxwell Richards, 2003.
Is anybody listening?

The answer is no! And there are three reasons for that. From my observation, number one is the PNM and the UNC’s divisive political culture that is contaminating our society. Secondly, most of our intellectuals and many people in the middle class, but more so the upper class, are not concerned about constitution reform because they are comfortable with the status quo as they are well placed in society. Thirdly, the poor and under-privileged Indian and African communities — that seem to be no longer the concern of the labour movement — are ignorant of the difference constitution reform can make in their lives if it is “people oriented” manifesting itself in better representation from our parliamentary representatives. One of my immediate concerns is the inability of the trade union movement to rally as one in support of a people’s constitution on behalf of the overwhelming majority of ordinary citizens. The movement is the one reliable organisation in this class-structures society that can provide genuine grass-root inputs into a reformed constitution for Trinidad and Tobago.

I am also wary over the sudden birth of the “Principles of Fairness” that has come up with eight principles of fairness, including the urgent review of our 28-year-old Republican Constitution. I am also very concerned about the involvement of the labour movement with this new group that can be used to bury the constitution reform debate in a cesspool of intellectual jargon and gymnastics to serve the interest of the status quo and diminish the hope of the less-fortunate for comprehensive reform in the interest of the ordinary people. Any student of scientific grass-root politics will know that in any society such as ours, whenever the comfortable lifestyle of the upper-middle class seems to be threatened by a growing disorder in society, its first and foremost “principle” is to quickly put in place mechanisms to protect itself from the social ills in society to which it directly or indirectly contributed.

It is all about maintaining their class position and influence. However, with a sense of fairness I do not intend to use a broad brush as I believe you can always find good people in bad places. Another consideration is that the eight principles of fairness can better relate to ordinary people unlike the Government’s clouded Vision 2020. Nevertheless, the eight principles led me to ponder over the 11 fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. There is also our national anthem that says: “Here every creed and race find an equal place.” I therefore ask the question: In light of these laudable declarations, why are we in the mess we are in today? Does the answer lie in our cancerous political-culture and the inability to manage lofty politically- correct ideas. The elders in our society must be reminded, and the younger ones need to know that the history of our Republican Constitution is not inspiring. It was born in political confusion that began with the 1971 General Elections when the PNM gained all 36 seats in Parliament, resulting from a no-vote campaign by opposition that culminated in a very low turnout and a call for constitution reform.

In 1972, the PNM responded by appointing the Wooding Constitution Commission that had extensive public participation. However, when the Commission submitted its report and recommendations that was a fair representation of the views of the people of Trinidad and Tobago, it was rejected by Dr Eric Williams and his 36-seat PNM Government. With the Wooding Commission’s report in a garbage bag, Dr Williams appointed an all-PNM Committee of Parliament to make recommendations for constitutional reform. It followed that the report of the all-PNM Committee of Parliament was approved by the 36-seat PNM Parliament that gave us the present Republican Constitution in 1976, that some people still refer to as a PNM Constitution that did not have any opposition input. There were also allegations that the Wooding’s report was rejected because it was contaminated with recommendations for proportional representation. Ten years later, when the people of the nation got tired of the PNM and replaced it with the NAR in 1986, the new Government in 1987 appointed the Hyatali Constitution Commission, but after 17 years its report was never brought to Parliament for discussion.

With this kind of history, our constitution cannot be considered a true Republican Constitution. The committee appointed by the education minister — following the Ministry’s clumsy handling of the Kalifa Logan dispute — “to develop mechanisms aimed at ensuring that all provisions of the Constitution and the Education Act are observed in schools across the country,” are understandable. However, the committee can do very little to protect the rights of students in the face of a vague constitution that is in itself discriminatory and an education system that is plagued with inequality and class discrimination. We do need a sense of fairness. Where do poor citizens stand with the Constitution if their rights are violated by the Government or a private institution? They are free to take the matter to the High Court for redress, but unless they have courthouse clothes and money to take that step, all their rights will be frozen in the never never land of TT justice. Neither Mr Manning nor Mr Panday can build a new society. That is the task of a concerned civil society. So let us get on with the job for the benefit of our children’s future.