What constitutional reform?

There appears to be a growing interest in the reform of our Republican constitution, there being no dearth of self-anointed “experts” willing to put their particular formulas on the political market. If you ask me, there appears to be more constitutional formulas than baby food formulas at the supermarket. I haven’t triple or even double-checked this but Dr Eric Williams was once reported to have said that, “If a constitution is good enough for Britain then it’s good enough for us.” Now it takes only a cursory examination of this statement to see how absurd it is. To begin with, our constitution is written and Britain’s isn’t. Besides this, we do not have the formal, informal and cultural (even historical and traditional) parameters that give the Westminster system its flexibility, authority and applicability where it has evolved. What we’ve grown to consider as our Westminster model of government is increasingly being lampooned as our “Westminster muddle” or worse. Now it’s not that Dr Williams wasn’t aware of this but the problem with Williams, as I perceive it, is that when he got caught between a political and a scholar’s perspective, the politician took over. Williams was probably playing to the political gallery to elicit the response: “Sock it to them, Doc, what’s good enough for the Brits is good enough for us. In any case, Massa day done!” Actually, the Doc appears to have bene well versed in constitutional theory and is on record as giving a detailed perspective of what “democracy” implied.

However Dr Williams virtually went ballistic at the prospect of any of Wooding’s suggestions of whatever forms of proportional representation, that Williams perceived as having the effect of curtailing his and the PNM’s political power and influence and representing a threat to his party’s hold on power. Although Williams debased what could have been a valuable public lesson in the pros and cons of “proportional representation” by his crude and unwarranted personal attacks on the commissioners, he was not entirely without a leg to stand on. Opposition leader Basdeo Panday is calling on Patrick Manning, the Prime Minister, to get together with him and agree on “fundamental constitution reform.” Manning’s ideas on “constitutional reform” are diametrically opposed to those of Panday’s. However, if the past is any guide, all we should expect from those two political oafs are vacuous smart-ass one-liners and half-arsed reasoning. Both Panday and Manning seem to agree on one thing and it is that we should have “an executive president.”

Guess who they have in mind for the position? Manning has made it clear that the idea of having “an executive president” was his and did not necessarily represent his party’s position. Panday is on record as favouring a constitutional formula which envisages that the party that wins the larger number of votes should provide the “executive president” (whatever that might mean) and the party that wins the larger number of seats would form the government and provide the Prime Minister. The President would presumably formulate policy, and the President and Prime Minister would negotiate its implementation. Having regard to the Crowne Plaza accord, all I can say to this is “Buzz off! and Gimme a break.” It’s not easy to tell what’s going on in people’s heads, especially when dealing with politicians. However, I suspect that both Panday and Manning are basing their political calculations on the demographics remaining as they are.

As a matter of interest, although political parties are recognised as far as voting symbols are concerned, it’s at least a moot point whether the constitution recognises political parties. I’m aware that to save their political backsides an attempt was made by Panday and Manning to make the “crossing of the floor” Act valid, but so far that’s very much in the air, even though Manning promised that he would “fix it” within forty seconds of being returned to power. You could put that promise alongside Panday’s promise to retire from active politics when he reaches the age of seventy or in seven months time. If I might digress a bit, isn’t it a bit curious that a political leader who claims that, “a constitution is just a piece of paper” and sets his face against any effort to give his “party” constitutional form and substance pursues “constitutional reform” as a big stick to beat Manning and the PNM with. Interestingly, “proportional representation” could be what the doctor ordered to smash the illusive hegemony that the current political parties imagine that they enjoy. In the event that “proportional representation” becomes a fact of political life, it’s not inconceivable that a multiplicity of groups coudl arise across the “political boundaries” and recognise that a number of smaller groups could now “count” and make their presence felt with newly acquired bargaining status.

The thought that I really wish to really leave you with is that Manning and Panday will continue with their silly time-wasting “cat-and-mouse” games and will be — or should be? — largely irrelevant to any serious discussion of or movement toward meaningful constitutional reform. Why should we forever be caught between a rock and a hard place or between arrested adolescence and creeping senility? Does anyone really expect the UNC to offer any help towards the amelioration of the crime situation, when that is the issue that it is hoped will return them to office? It’s not as if Panday and his minions have the solution to “runaway crime,” and, if truth be told, they could probably tell us whether and why they were hitherto too shy to so vociferously distance themselves from “the politicisation of criminality or the criminalisation of politics.” Be that as it may, an administration that cannot guarantee acceptable levels of personal security can consider its days numbered, notwithstanding any number of puerile gimmicks of self-glorification.